[lsb-discuss] [Fedora-packaging] SCL discussion at yesterday's meeting, easy stuff
a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Nov 12 02:39:09 UTC 2013
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:43:48PM -0500, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Joe Julian wrote:
> > Which implies the only requirement is that the SCL installer would have to ask
> > before replacing a package (assuming /opt/<package>). The LANANA registration
> > and subsequent package hierarchy would be simplest, safest, and most logical,
> > imho.
> The LSB folks at our weekly bug triage considered the bug
> filed by Matt Miller on the topic . The FHS and LANANA
> space is mature without much activity, and so my comment 2 in
> that bug was designed to permit a 'fast-track' assignment of a
> /opt/fedora/ namespace, for use as the project sees fit
> We need to do some infrastructure work with LANANA to
> communicate this well within the FHS documentation, but as
> Jeff's summary indicates, absent some major objection being
> surfaced, will, I think, be the way the LSB proceeds in its
> next update (usually done at six month intervals)
> -- Russ herrold
>  https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1164
Reading the replies to the Linux Foundation bug report there's a few
concerns that I think would help FPC members who are concerned by /opt:
* Preallocation of LANANA names sounds great! Thanks.
* FPC members might still be concerned about clashes between software and
registered LANANA names that weren't registered until recently such as
Fedora when it gets pre-allocated. Thinking about it this weekend,
I don't see much way around this except to actually update the FHS around
/opt. Maybe something like the following changes:
A package to be installed in /opt must locate its static files in[...]the
provider's LANANA registered name.
+Distributions may utilize this structure to install software but must obey
+the same rules as any other vendor.
The directories /opt/bin, /opt/doc, /opt/include, /opt/info, /opt/lib, and
/opt/man are reserved for local system administrator use. [...] these
+The directories /opt/<provider> are reserved for vendors to install their
+packages' files within. System administrators are cautioned that because
+the list of LANANA provider names grows over time they should not make
+arbitrary files and directories inside of /opt. Instead make local changes
+in one of the /opt subdirectories listed above or in /srv.
-Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not modify or delete
-software installed by the local system administrator without the assent of
-the local system administrator.
+Vendors who install software in /opt must not modify or delete software
+installed by the local system administrator without the assent of the local
+system administrator. Since the /opt/<provider> hierarchies are reserved
+for vendors, vendors are encouraged to limit their software installation to
+the /opt/<provider> hierarchy belonging to them to avoid conflicts.
* In the rationale section, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of:
"Generally, all data required to support a package on a system must be
present within /opt/<package>, including files intended to be copied into
/etc/opt/<package> and /var/opt/<package> as well as reserved directories
My gut feeling is that the dual requirement is so that the sys admin can
have a baseline to revert to or if they are using a network mount of the
/opt hierarchy and want to bring up a new machine. With Fedora-provided
rpms, the rpm should serve that same purpose so I think we can waive the
requirement to have the files in /opt/<provider>... they can be present in
only /etc/opt/<provider> and /var/opt/<provider>.
* In the FPC meeting we talked about whether
/var/log/scls/<provider>/<scl>/<logfiles> would be preferable and settled
on the latter so that sysadmins could continue to find their logfiles
under /var/log. Do you/the lsb have a feeling about that? My reading of
usage of /opt is that the FHS would currently mandate
/var/opt/<provider>/<scl>/log/<logfiles> -- not sure if this is something
that could/should be changed. A rationale of why not to change it would
be nice though.
limburgher, I know that you were at the last meeting and were championing
the non-opt because of FHS/sysadmin overwriting concerns. Do you have
anything to add to the above?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the lsb-discuss