11:09 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I've just submitted a review request[1] for Nix[2], a purely
functional package manager.
Nix uses the /nix directory by default for essential operations -- its
package store, for instance, is located at /nix/store by default, and
it's local state in /nix/var.
These can be overridden at compile time, however, doing so makes it
impossible to use pre-built binaries[3] provided in Nix channels
(repositories).
As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for creating a new
directory under root -- cf. the introduction of /run, as documented
in Fedora 15's release notes[4]:
This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard,
which allows distributions to create new directories in the root
hierarchy as long as there is careful consideration of the
consequences.
I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built binaries,
and the reduced usefulness of the tool without this compatibility
(anyone who has used MacPorts, with its lack of pre-built binaries,
would sympathize).
Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827289
[2]: http://nixos.org/nix/
[3]: http://hydra.nixos.org/build/2657151/download/1/manual/#id523917
[4]:
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/15/html/Release_Notes/sect-Rel...
Thanks in advance,
- --
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPyZIKAAoJEEr1VKujapN6Am8H/3YjBVTOC50uTwX+sUgfHcaq
nofCNitD29Dz8/y1Zt+1/Y9aWPTl64Mx9Cwgug8pcv5zJCiXU6nMlWQ+4OsHdVb4
XSyOHR1gwtnh+tfV46y3wG4NYwjm0x2+7Ti+55mrmEpOT5FSGHVb3AHamBb91s9s
2JNb2LxSPDAZc9l9G4Qe+wRwUvoGKFtjOnTi91bC6OzYq7qvAbCwQHPGKSjZt3EH
jAU0xAHIp/OeHudJLohDAdU8Ma8r9XQVKIGOrtw80DvpPtAIHPvPdjNebLOSMpwg
XspMl68Fgy3CY/fcSAdtRBZKlN+8UGEoCYsgFz1LZBs5lNytUyF/KfliPKllA+Y=
=oI1K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11:45 p.m.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I've just submitted a review request[1] for Nix[2], a purely
functional package manager.
Nix uses the /nix directory by default for essential operations -- its
package store, for instance, is located at /nix/store by default, and
it's local state in /nix/var.
These can be overridden at compile time, however, doing so makes it
impossible to use pre-built binaries[3] provided in Nix channels
(repositories).
As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for creating a new
directory under root -- cf. the introduction of /run, as documented
in Fedora 15's release notes[4]:
This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard,
which allows distributions to create new directories in the root
hierarchy as long as there is careful consideration of the
consequences.
I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built binaries,
and the reduced usefulness of the tool without this compatibility
(anyone who has used MacPorts, with its lack of pre-built binaries,
would sympathize).
Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827289
[2]: http://nixos.org/nix/
[3]: http://hydra.nixos.org/build/2657151/download/1/manual/#id523917
[4]:
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/15/html/Release_Notes/sect-Rel...
Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think it will be
a close or negative vote.
Also, there was talk about whether Fedora should allow alternate package
managers (meaning system-wide package managers that work with formats that
are not rpm ie: dpkg or apt-get that works with .debs [not the apt-get rpm
port].) I do not remember what the decision was there.
Lastly, the release notes do not accurately reflect the reason that the FPC
chose to allow /run.
-Toshio
12:40 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 06/02/2012 11:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
> As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for creating a
> new directory under root -- cf. the introduction of /run, as
> documented in Fedora 15's release notes[4]:
>
> This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard,
> which allows distributions to create new directories in the root
> hierarchy as long as there is careful consideration of the
> consequences.
>
> I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built
> binaries, and the reduced usefulness of the tool without this
> compatibility (anyone who has used MacPorts, with its lack of
> pre-built binaries, would sympathize).
>
> Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think it
will be a close or negative vote.
OK, I probably shouldn't try then if there's almost no chance of it
going through. So this should be something for RPM Fusion, I suppose?
(under the "packages that are FLOSS and has no legal issue but are not
allowed by packaging standards, e.g. kmod kernel modules)
Also, there was talk about whether Fedora should allow alternate
package managers (meaning system-wide package managers that work
with formats that are not rpm ie: dpkg or apt-get that works with
.debs [not the apt-get rpm port].) I do not remember what the
decision was there.
Hmm. While alternate package managers that install to locations that
would conflict with the default package manager (which would be the
case with dpkg), nix just creates symlinks in the user directory --
people have been running it on Debian/Ubuntu with no problem. It's
less intrusive than even MacPorts, and is about the same as, say,
python-pip and zeroinstall-injector.
I'd argue it in an FPC meeting if it's just the concern about
alternate package managers, but the /nix layout is probably a
deal-breaker.
Lastly, the release notes do not accurately reflect the reason that
the FPC chose to allow /run.
Ah. I *was* a bit surprised to find that rationale there, ISTR the
debate was a bit more heated there.
Thanks,
- --
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPyadAAAoJEEr1VKujapN6IqcH/35QT1yeOe+uK/aXm7rP3FTQ
yYbxsVKQDrv3YFvePed2HyjJFWPVhb6XonbXk/fauPE7j2DMwQGEVNlnOsawsZZF
OsOt8RDcXsVldz9vFsjNOtE/SabY9bWYky9k2plG03xTOkJLa92qGZiK5vv/+SF+
nJI+UyFFtmtZ2IXzRy7loIW19jW9eC8k5l6Gn+AvoNca++IjHZfn6WVBEAz0DF/x
aQ1GJDNa9qTp/h4lKeG8fzWK94IMGHsjLiR7Le75Dygd9saCxSk00h9Ieh48++p5
escjFMsPhxPnPfJR9K9OEaJkNxj+F5zQCyWl+V9HWxD5l6uZYh7okANG7vUBU/A=
=J+eA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9:49 p.m.
On 06/02/2012 07:40 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 06/02/2012 11:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim
> wrote:
>> As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for creating a
>> new directory under root -- cf. the introduction of /run, as
>> documented in Fedora 15's release notes[4]:
>>
>> This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard,
>> which allows distributions to create new directories in the root
>> hierarchy as long as there is careful consideration of the
>> consequences.
>>
>> I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built
>> binaries, and the reduced usefulness of the tool without this
>> compatibility (anyone who has used MacPorts, with its lack of
>> pre-built binaries, would sympathize).
>>
>> Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
> Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think it
> will be a close or negative vote.
>
OK, I probably shouldn't try then if there's almost no chance of it
going through. So this should be something for RPM Fusion, I suppose?
RPM Fusion is supposed to follow the Fedora packing rules.
=> This would not be an option for you.
> Also, there was talk about whether Fedora should allow alternate
> package managers (meaning system-wide package managers that work
> with formats that are not rpm ie: dpkg or apt-get that works with
> .debs [not the apt-get rpm port].) I do not remember what the
> decision was there.
I don't recall such discussion. I recall a general
discussion
interaction with some language's "installers" (Python, ruby (gems), etc).
With regard to them, there had been consensus of "all installers" must
properly interact with rpm", esp. must all installations they excercise
be reflected into rpm's db.
IMO, the same consideration applies to "alternative package installers".
In particular, do several, separate, independent installation db's not
make any sense.
> Lastly, the release notes do not accurately reflect the reason
that
> the FPC chose to allow /run.
Well, ... unfortunately, yes.
I can live with this decision (It's not worth to make a fuzz about it),
nevertheless, I consider this decision to be a serious mistake and would
be highly in favor of it being revisited and be reverted.
Ralf
11:37 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 06/04/2012 09:49 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 06/02/2012 07:40 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/02/2012 11:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre
>> Salim wrote:
>>> As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for
>>> creating a new directory under root -- cf. the introduction
>>> of /run, as documented in Fedora 15's release notes[4]:
>>>
>>> This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy
>>> Standard, which allows distributions to create new
>>> directories in the root hierarchy as long as there is careful
>>> consideration of the consequences.
>>>
>>> I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built
>>> binaries, and the reduced usefulness of the tool without
>>> this compatibility (anyone who has used MacPorts, with its
>>> lack of pre-built binaries, would sympathize).
>>>
>>> Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
>> Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think
>> it will be a close or negative vote.
>>
> OK, I probably shouldn't try then if there's almost no chance of
> it going through. So this should be something for RPM Fusion, I
> suppose?
RPM Fusion is supposed to follow the Fedora packing rules. => This
would not be an option for you.
Thanks. They do allow akmods though, so I'm not sure exactly where
they draw the line. But I think I should take into account the
possibility that it won't get in there either, and maintain a separate
repo for it (*not* on fedorapeople, of course)
>> Also, there was talk about whether Fedora should allow
>> alternate package managers (meaning system-wide package
>> managers that work with formats that are not rpm ie: dpkg or
>> apt-get that works with .debs [not the apt-get rpm port].) I
>> do not remember what the decision was there.
I don't recall such discussion. I recall a general discussion
interaction with some language's "installers" (Python, ruby (gems),
etc).
With regard to them, there had been consensus of "all installers"
must properly interact with rpm", esp. must all installations they
excercise be reflected into rpm's db.
Python's doesn't, I thought? There is some integration but it's the
other way around -- that RPM-provided Python modules are "seen" by
easy_install and pip.
IMO, the same consideration applies to "alternative package
installers". In particular, do several, separate, independent
installation db's not make any sense.
>> Lastly, the release notes do not accurately reflect the reason
>> that the FPC chose to allow /run.
Well, ... unfortunately, yes.
I can live with this decision (It's not worth to make a fuzz about
it), nevertheless, I consider this decision to be a serious mistake
and would be highly in favor of it being revisited and be
reverted.
I personally think they could have just used /var/run for that ...
Thanks,
- --
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPzDuXAAoJEEr1VKujapN6M6IH/1O0riyX4Dhl8Uo4+nPRBz48
52MuTsMkAlG0TuiTod0PhDhShsgIRbDcSBBDErc2mZiV0SKIBAT3OszzG9QfXB6G
7GZ1ktJ86UcRxm+EtdTclp6aVEtpc9VrfcKBy4Ua0OlNPViPzqXi3+IRT75Fz3ZV
nwhbkaTBeSwGS6pOQZ3qBqdn/pFZT/GQaZBK7QEGSo4kjVgqrOKVS1almmFJ4Y/B
JIg1Kec7HyAXzASbdjU+bBTQqw1giPQD5eICqx+vaO+3Pg3N3aDsE5aRNdyVMj1Y
Gecn7WLJ6VXA9Nlld6zoqGYuwX6xgialZfXunVW/+t4wFWR6OuKQ49AhVZzkNBg=
=Nu9R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2:15 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 06/02/2012 11:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
>
> I've just submitted a review request[1] for Nix[2], a purely
> functional package manager.
>
> Nix uses the /nix directory by default for essential operations
> -- its package store, for instance, is located at /nix/store by
> default, and it's local state in /nix/var.
>
...
> Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
>
> [1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827289 [2]:
> http://nixos.org/nix/ [3]:
> http://hydra.nixos.org/build/2657151/download/1/manual/#id523917
> [4]:
>
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/15/html/Release_Notes/sect-Rel...
>
>
Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think it will be
a close or negative vote.
Filed a ticket:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/180
Will take it to RPM Fusion if the request is voted down; at the very
least there'd be a precedent for similar packages.
Thanks,
- --
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPyb2sAAoJEEr1VKujapN6MaoIAI/rZ2fI38Vm5NLw3H5hrsBK
pe+qqv0pKNQDe0fi7B31JCb97DX/6ynV8yLp//Ia8BZiOyFcgHwBENXEAlhePyFf
HEqykJnhTNdMtPCSeNW16HndKfQQeBCuC3SAk58WQ7Hopd6xjjI0HrOAc+q/kXaj
n+6Q237pDzVlo6xldWB8DtZxi9R82V/mS2oC+Vl7Q3vzmeJGZTxVhTelyIYBlcGa
t6dx28ox1dFVD1zno2/LfA9NNwMq/CjHVGs3tY2NJb3Nx/2oFnJJz0eSn6nEdNJ7
9+SLszwVaeurypreG37QLeNb0rBoVd4yZyD49HyfgSMHCN/6a58pXm5/W/3VQic=
=ifMI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
4344
days inactive
4346
days old
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Michel Alexandre Salim -
Ralf Corsepius -
Toshio Kuratomi