On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:22 PM, Michael Stahnke
wrote:
> As a point of moderation, we could probably break out the FHS/stateless
> discussion into its own thread, as at this point this has nearly nothing to
> do with Puppet.
Good point. Let me circle it back around:
It seems reasonable for a m
As a point of moderation, we could probably break out the FHS/stateless
discussion into its own thread, as at this point this has nearly nothing to
do with Puppet.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: htt
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>
>>
>> The "/etc" migration, however, is part of the "stateless linux" work
>> desribed at http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/stateless.html. They're
>> planning on resetting "/etc"
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
> The "/etc" migration, however, is part of the "stateless linux" work
> desribed at http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/stateless.html. They're
> planning on resetting "/etc" to a "pristine vendor state", and
> basdically keep it that way
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 06:52:35PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> Given the profound discrepancies between the FHS 3 and everything that
>> systemd touches, I'm afraid it's become a confusing guideline for
>> Fedora work.
On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 06:52:35PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 01:31:10PM +, John Florian wrote:
> >> Personally I do so using a scheme like /opt/$VENDOR/$PRODUCT/$RELEASE,
> >> but to my knowledge the F
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 01:31:10PM +, John Florian wrote:
>> Personally I do so using a scheme like /opt/$VENDOR/$PRODUCT/$RELEASE,
>> but to my knowledge the FHS has never ratified anything like that. The
>> FHS seems to take a rather
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 06:48:45PM +, John Florian wrote:
> > > http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch03s13.html
> Thanks for that info. I've always referenced
> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ before. Is that no longer
> authoritative ... or was it ever?
It was authoritative for
On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 11:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 11:31:04AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > This is actually specifically addressed in FHS 3.0, released, actually,
> > _just this week_. See
> > http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb/fhs-30
> >
Hi!
(Sorry for top-quote, but on mobile...)
Copy that and FHS states this quite clear. Personally I'm also not a huge fan
of software installing to /opt.
Neither am I a fan of packaging (local) libraries in there - for a variety of
reasons. I even think the Fedora packaging guidelines forbid th
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 11:31:04AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> This is actually specifically addressed in FHS 3.0, released, actually,
> _just this week_. See
> http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb/fhs-30
> and specifically
> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/f
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 01:31:10PM +, John Florian wrote:
> Personally I do so using a scheme like /opt/$VENDOR/$PRODUCT/$RELEASE,
> but to my knowledge the FHS has never ratified anything like that. The
> FHS seems to take a rather vague stance on /opt overall IMHO.
This is actually specific
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Michael Stahnke
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:31 AM, John Florian
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 01:12 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:21 PM, John Florian
>> wrote:
>> > > I’ve been curious how Fedora plans to tackle inc
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:31 AM, John Florian wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 01:12 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:21 PM, John Florian
> wrote:
> > > I’ve been curious how Fedora plans to tackle inclusion of Puppet 4, but
> > > haven’t heard even a peep on the subject
On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 01:12 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:21 PM, John Florian wrote:
> > I’ve been curious how Fedora plans to tackle inclusion of Puppet 4, but
> > haven’t heard even a peep on the subject. As described[1], they’ve moved to
> > an all-in-one packaging
On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 20:17 -0700, Michael Stahnke wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Haïkel
> wrote:
> 2015-06-04 20:21 GMT+02:00 John Florian
> :
> > I’ve been curious how Fedora plans to tackle inclusion of
> Puppet 4, but
> > haven’t heard ev
On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 23:21 +0200, Haïkel wrote:
> 2015-06-04 20:21 GMT+02:00 John Florian :
> > I’ve been curious how Fedora plans to tackle inclusion of Puppet 4, but
> > haven’t heard even a peep on the subject. As described[1], they’ve moved to
> > an all-in-one packaging process that “include
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:21 PM, John Florian wrote:
> I’ve been curious how Fedora plans to tackle inclusion of Puppet 4, but
> haven’t heard even a peep on the subject. As described[1], they’ve moved to
> an all-in-one packaging process that “includes Puppet 4, both Facter 2.4 and
> CFacter 0.4,
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Haïkel wrote:
> 2015-06-04 20:21 GMT+02:00 John Florian :
> > I’ve been curious how Fedora plans to tackle inclusion of Puppet 4, but
> > haven’t heard even a peep on the subject. As described[1], they’ve
> moved to
> > an all-in-one packaging process that “includ
2015-06-04 20:21 GMT+02:00 John Florian :
> I’ve been curious how Fedora plans to tackle inclusion of Puppet 4, but
> haven’t heard even a peep on the subject. As described[1], they’ve moved to
> an all-in-one packaging process that “includes Puppet 4, both Facter 2.4 and
> CFacter 0.4, the latest
20 matches
Mail list logo
