-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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:
>>> 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
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),
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
I personally think they could have just used /var/run for that ...
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
- against proprietary attachments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----