[lsb-discuss] [Fedora-packaging] SCL discussion at yesterday's meeting, easy stuff

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Mon Nov 18 21:47:32 UTC 2013

Note: I'm now writing to lsb-discuss... this portion of the discussion
(potential changes to FHS) should probably continue there.

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 01:01:27PM -0500, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >  A package to be installed in /opt must locate its static 
> > files in [...] the provider's LANANA registered name.
> This focus on static libraries is a Fedora local decision, no?  
Note -- this is actually referencing he FHS static vs variable files
distinction.  I've posted a patch to the FHS to the lsb bug report so
hopefully this portion will be clear after reading it there:



> >   My reading of
> >   usage of /opt is that the FHS would currently mandate
> >   /var/opt/<provider>/<scl>/log/<logfiles> 
> assuming for the sake of advancing the thread that /var/opt/ 
> is under FHS specification, once we go below the 'well known' 
> demarc of: 
> 	/var/opt/<provider>/ 

<nod>  -- I'm not really asking about structure after /var/opt/<provider>/.
I'm wondering if the FHS would like to specify that if server packages are
installed under /opt/ that they should place log files that they do create
under /var/log/opt/<provider>. Currently, FHS would seem to specify that
they belong somewhere under /var/opt/<provider>

This would be a new hierarchy if so.  I think the committee I'm on would be
okay either way -- it just seemed like sysadmins would find it useful to
have their log files under /var/log/ instead of scattered around in random
directories under /var/opt/* so I thought I'd ask if that was something
that might want to be changed within FHS.

I'm also still not sure how we should apply this portion of the FHS to our
specific case:

  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 in
    http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#REQUIREMENTS7  (Rationale
    subsection, third paragraph)

  Is that the requirement to copy files from /opt/<package> to
  /etc/opt/<package> so that the sys admin can have a baseline to revert to?
  If so, if we're providing the contents of /opt/<package> from an rpm,
  would that serve the same purpose so we should feel free to only install
  into /etc/opt/<package>?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/attachments/20131118/b571f4ff/attachment.sig>

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list