Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 05:55:16PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 12:23:42AM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:16:02AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:24:08AM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:19:43AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:23:44PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
As I understand it, the best way to do this in Fedora, with
respect to
same ideas in this thread, would be having %{_libexecdir}/plan9
or similar,
with bin, lib and share (or whatever upstream supplies)
subdirectories.
You understood it wrong, %{_libexecdir}/plan9 should contain only
binaries
and nothing else, the rest would go into %{_libdir}/plan9.
I don't understand why exactly %{_libexecdir}/plan9/* would be
preferable to
the more-straightforward /usr/bin/plan9/*. Generally, programs that
are in
libexec are meant to _not_ be executed directly, which is not the
case here.
That would indeed be better, I guess.
It's okay with both FHS 2.3 and our current Guidelines (or maybe I'm
just
missing something), rpmlint complains about %{_bindir} subdirectory,
though.
(...)
9base.x86_64: E: subdir-in-bin /usr/bin/plan9/dc
The package contains a subdirectory in /usr/bin. It's not permitted to
create
a subdir there. Create it in /usr/lib/ instead.
(...)
I'm going to update the package review since this more like an rpmlint
issue.
I just got back from FUDCon Panama so I may have read a few things too
quickly... What's the use case for these programs?
Just for scripts?
For users that are used to plan9 behaviour and want to use them from their
shell?
Pretty much those. Plus they are fun to play with.
So, to be clear, you're saying this is just for the latter (users that want
to have plan9 behaviour) and not the former (for scripts)?
No, they are both for users and for scripts.
I'm sorry I haven't taken a look at your spec file -- does the latest
incarnation place the binaries in some non-PATH directory and then have
prefixed symlinks to those binaries in /usr/bin?
The latest version puts binaries in /usr/bin/plan9/ and other stuff in
/usr/lib[64]/plan9/ (etc, lib and share subdirectories, currently).
Having the etc and share directories in %{_libdir} is not all that great...
Either %{_libdir}/plan9 or %{_libdir}/plan9 + %{_libexecdir}/plan9 split
seem that they may fit the bill here. One of those may be more right than
the other depending on what use case we're trying to support.
Subdirectories of %{_bindir} really should not be used in Fedora.
But why exactly?
subdirectories of /bin are prohibited by the FHS. The subdirectories that
may be located in /usr/bin by the FHS are there specifically for
compatibilities sake for two selected subsystems (mh and X11R6).
Subdirectories of bin directories don't make any more sense than any other
directory as they are not added to the PATH by default and thus are not
user invokable progams without further modification to the environment.
Placing binaries that are not to be in the default PATH are better placed in
a more standard location (either libexecdir or libdir depending on the
use-case). Subdirectories of /usr/bin are just plain non-standard
locations.
Yes, I'm aware of that restriction for /bin; that doesn't apply to /usr/bin,
though. Users have to adjust their PATH no matter which directory I choose.
I don't find libexec to be a standard directory. Also, as Matthew already
stated, this should be used for non-directly invoked binaries, if at all.
And for %{_libdir}, according to FHS:
/usr/lib includes object files, libraries, and internal binaries that are
not intended to be executed directly by users or shell scripts.
This says it all.
%{_bindir}/plan9 seems like a perfect location; it's just some people don't feel
it's right...
--
# Petr Sabata
pgp5Cn2ynhZEV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:24:08AM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:19:43AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:23:44PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
As I understand it, the best way to do this in Fedora, with respect to
same ideas in this thread, would be having %{_libexecdir}/plan9 or
similar,
with bin, lib and share (or whatever upstream supplies) subdirectories.
You understood it wrong, %{_libexecdir}/plan9 should contain only binaries
and nothing else, the rest would go into %{_libdir}/plan9.
I don't understand why exactly %{_libexecdir}/plan9/* would be preferable to
the more-straightforward /usr/bin/plan9/*. Generally, programs that are in
libexec are meant to _not_ be executed directly, which is not the case here.
That would indeed be better, I guess.
It's okay with both FHS 2.3 and our current Guidelines (or maybe I'm just
missing something), rpmlint complains about %{_bindir} subdirectory, though.
(...)
9base.x86_64: E: subdir-in-bin /usr/bin/plan9/dc
The package contains a subdirectory in /usr/bin. It's not permitted to create
a subdir there. Create it in /usr/lib/ instead.
(...)
I'm going to update the package review since this more like an rpmlint issue.
I just got back from FUDCon Panama so I may have read a few things too
quickly... What's the use case for these programs?
Just for scripts?
For users that are used to plan9 behaviour and want to use them from their
shell?
Either %{_libdir}/plan9 or %{_libdir}/plan9 + %{_libexecdir}/plan9 split
seem that they may fit the bill here. One of those may be more right than
the other depending on what use case we're trying to support.
Subdirectories of %{_bindir} really should not be used in Fedora.
-Toshio
pgpxwoKDRpBT1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:16:02AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:24:08AM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:19:43AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:23:44PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
As I understand it, the best way to do this in Fedora, with respect to
same ideas in this thread, would be having %{_libexecdir}/plan9 or
similar,
with bin, lib and share (or whatever upstream supplies)
subdirectories.
You understood it wrong, %{_libexecdir}/plan9 should contain only
binaries
and nothing else, the rest would go into %{_libdir}/plan9.
I don't understand why exactly %{_libexecdir}/plan9/* would be preferable
to
the more-straightforward /usr/bin/plan9/*. Generally, programs that are in
libexec are meant to _not_ be executed directly, which is not the case
here.
That would indeed be better, I guess.
It's okay with both FHS 2.3 and our current Guidelines (or maybe I'm just
missing something), rpmlint complains about %{_bindir} subdirectory, though.
(...)
9base.x86_64: E: subdir-in-bin /usr/bin/plan9/dc
The package contains a subdirectory in /usr/bin. It's not permitted to
create
a subdir there. Create it in /usr/lib/ instead.
(...)
I'm going to update the package review since this more like an rpmlint
issue.
I just got back from FUDCon Panama so I may have read a few things too
quickly... What's the use case for these programs?
Just for scripts?
For users that are used to plan9 behaviour and want to use them from their
shell?
Pretty much those. Plus they are fun to play with.
Either %{_libdir}/plan9 or %{_libdir}/plan9 + %{_libexecdir}/plan9 split
seem that they may fit the bill here. One of those may be more right than
the other depending on what use case we're trying to support.
Subdirectories of %{_bindir} really should not be used in Fedora.
But why exactly?
--
# Petr Sabata
pgpMNhPVWRWhO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:19:43AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:23:44PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
As I understand it, the best way to do this in Fedora, with respect to
same ideas in this thread, would be having %{_libexecdir}/plan9 or
similar,
with bin, lib and share (or whatever upstream supplies) subdirectories.
You understood it wrong, %{_libexecdir}/plan9 should contain only binaries
and nothing else, the rest would go into %{_libdir}/plan9.
I don't understand why exactly %{_libexecdir}/plan9/* would be preferable to
the more-straightforward /usr/bin/plan9/*. Generally, programs that are in
libexec are meant to _not_ be executed directly, which is not the case here.
That would indeed be better, I guess.
It's okay with both FHS 2.3 and our current Guidelines (or maybe I'm just
missing something), rpmlint complains about %{_bindir} subdirectory, though.
(...)
9base.x86_64: E: subdir-in-bin /usr/bin/plan9/dc
The package contains a subdirectory in /usr/bin. It's not permitted to create
a subdir there. Create it in /usr/lib/ instead.
(...)
I'm going to update the package review since this more like an rpmlint issue.
--
# Petr Sabata
pgpFH7nO3BC32.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
Le Lun 30 mai 2011 11:24, Petr Sabata a écrit :
That would indeed be better, I guess.
It's okay with both FHS 2.3 and our current Guidelines (or maybe I'm just
missing something), rpmlint complains about %{_bindir} subdirectory, though.
Again /usr/bin/ subdirectories are not used in Fedora and only appear as
legacy remnants in the FHS (and this part is supposed to be cleaned up for the
next FHS version)
rpmlint is right, please do not reintroduce new filesystem exceptions now
http://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=802
--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 03:33, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Le Lun 30 mai 2011 11:24, Petr Sabata a écrit :
That would indeed be better, I guess.
It's okay with both FHS 2.3 and our current Guidelines (or maybe I'm just
missing something), rpmlint complains about %{_bindir} subdirectory, though.
Again /usr/bin/ subdirectories are not used in Fedora and only appear as
legacy remnants in the FHS (and this part is supposed to be cleaned up for the
next FHS version)
After installing 18000+ packages, the only thing I can see with a
subdirectory in /usr/bin is libgda which seems to create
/usr/bin/gda_trml2html and /usr/bin/gda_trml2pdf . [I have found a lot
of packages which aren't installing because they have file collisions
like /usr/bin/scrub and /usr/bin/validate (and many others I am trying
to get a list of). But this would at least say that putting
sub-directories in /usr/bin is frowned on.
rpmlint is right, please do not reintroduce new filesystem exceptions now
http://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=802
--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle. -- Ian MacLaren
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
Le Mer 25 mai 2011 20:39, seth vidal a écrit : I think that's completely appropriate. But does that mean the pkg should stay out of the distro? Note that there is *no* problem if the binaries are renamed in /usr/bin with an explicit prefix, as has been asked from the beginning. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 02:17:17PM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote:
Hi list,
I've been thinking about packaging 9base [1], a port of Plan 9 userspace
tools,
for Fedora. I'm interested in opinions on what style is better and why.
The problem is most of 9base binaries (and their manpages) have the same
name as their coreutils (and other) equivalents, therefore we need to install
them to somewhere else. Upstream suggests installing all its directories (bin,
share, lib, ...) into /usr/local. This is not acceptable for obvious reasons.
Options:
#1, aka the Gentoo way
Gentoo installs its 9base package into /usr/plan9, basically not touching
9base files at all. This collides with FHS and therefore would require an
exception in Packaging Guidelines.
#2, aka the Debian way
Debian installs its 9base package into /usr/lib. Well, most of it. They
also prefix all the manpages with 'plan9-', not the binaries, though.
This placement (provided we use %{_libdir}) introduces issues for Plan
9 rc shell scripts and their shebangs.
#3, aka the Fedora way?
Should we do this in some other way?
I personally like the #1 better since it's more clean (except for the required
FHS exception) and more or less aligned with upstream.
[1] http://tools.suckless.org/9base
--
# Petr Sabata
I'd like to thank all for their input.
As I understand it, the best way to do this in Fedora, with respect to
same ideas in this thread, would be having %{_libexecdir}/plan9 or similar,
with bin, lib and share (or whatever upstream supplies) subdirectories.
I think creating prefixed symlinks for binaries and manpages would just make it
more ugly. Users should adjust their PATH/MANPATH if they wish to use those.
--
# Petr Sabata
pgp5yZZ33Ze3j.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:18:07PM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote:
I'd like to thank all for their input.
As I understand it, the best way to do this in Fedora, with respect to
same ideas in this thread, would be having %{_libexecdir}/plan9 or similar,
with bin, lib and share (or whatever upstream supplies) subdirectories.
You understood it wrong, %{_libexecdir}/plan9 should contain only binaries
and nothing else, the rest would go into %{_libdir}/plan9.
Jakub
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:23:44PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:18:07PM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote:
I'd like to thank all for their input.
As I understand it, the best way to do this in Fedora, with respect to
same ideas in this thread, would be having %{_libexecdir}/plan9 or similar,
with bin, lib and share (or whatever upstream supplies) subdirectories.
You understood it wrong, %{_libexecdir}/plan9 should contain only binaries
and nothing else, the rest would go into %{_libdir}/plan9.
Review Request: 9base - A port of various original Plan 9 tools for Unix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707993
--
# Petr Sabata
pgpoa3pydPfxK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:23:44PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
As I understand it, the best way to do this in Fedora, with respect to
same ideas in this thread, would be having %{_libexecdir}/plan9 or similar,
with bin, lib and share (or whatever upstream supplies) subdirectories.
You understood it wrong, %{_libexecdir}/plan9 should contain only binaries
and nothing else, the rest would go into %{_libdir}/plan9.
I don't understand why exactly %{_libexecdir}/plan9/* would be preferable to
the more-straightforward /usr/bin/plan9/*. Generally, programs that are in
libexec are meant to _not_ be executed directly, which is not the case here.
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org
Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional Research Computing Services
Harvard School of Engineering Applied Sciences
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
Petr Sabata (con...@redhat.com) said: Simply to make Fedora better. I'd like to make those available for our users. There are currently no other packages relying on this set (or rc, to be more specific) in Fedora. That could change in the future, though. The question is - why does having incompatible plan9 implementations of common commands make Fedora 'better', outside of having more stuff? You could say the same about most of Fedora packages. Right, I do. At some point, you have to decide whether you're producing an operating system that's an 'integrated set of software ... that just works', or a huge repository of disparate projects. 'Better', giving people tools to use, to choose from. Fedora isn't one of those pure, minimalist distributions anyway. We have a lot of alternatives for a lot of stuff. Some do more, some do less, some do the same but differently. Yes, but as soon as people start using all of these 'multiple tools to choose from', you then end up with things like 5 different cryptography libraries that all need export controlled, and so on. For things that are core system functionality, it's questionable the value of supporting multiple different incompatible implementations simultaneously. I mean, how many implementations of 'basename' do you really need in a distribution? Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:59:27AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:35, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 09:28:02AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: There is no reason not to put them in /usr/lib(64). That's where common binaries such as firefox, java, etc already reside. They all have magic env variables to define their root for scripts and symlinks/wrappers/alternatives in /usr/bin In this case, though, there wouldn't be wrappers or scripts in /usr/bin. Ok looking at how convoluted we are having to get this package in.. what are the reasons to have it in Fedora? Would some other way of producing them having them available be there? Who is going to benefit from them being there? Etc Simply to make Fedora better. I'd like to make those available for our users. There are currently no other packages relying on this set (or rc, to be more specific) in Fedora. That could change in the future, though. -- # Petr Sabata pgp4ZpZ3ZpZ55.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
Nicolas Mailhot wrote: There is no reason not to put them in /usr/lib(64). That's where common binaries such as firefox, java, etc already reside. They all have magic env variables to define their root for scripts and symlinks/wrappers/alternatives in /usr/bin Well, actually, the proper place for executables is /usr/libexec, not /usr/lib(64). That's what libexec is for. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
Petr Sabata (con...@redhat.com) said: There is no reason not to put them in /usr/lib(64). That's where common binaries such as firefox, java, etc already reside. They all have magic env variables to define their root for scripts and symlinks/wrappers/alternatives in /usr/bin In this case, though, there wouldn't be wrappers or scripts in /usr/bin. Ok looking at how convoluted we are having to get this package in.. what are the reasons to have it in Fedora? Would some other way of producing them having them available be there? Who is going to benefit from them being there? Etc Simply to make Fedora better. I'd like to make those available for our users. There are currently no other packages relying on this set (or rc, to be more specific) in Fedora. That could change in the future, though. The question is - why does having incompatible plan9 implementations of common commands make Fedora 'better', outside of having more stuff? Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:36:10AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: Petr Sabata (con...@redhat.com) said: There is no reason not to put them in /usr/lib(64). That's where common binaries such as firefox, java, etc already reside. They all have magic env variables to define their root for scripts and symlinks/wrappers/alternatives in /usr/bin In this case, though, there wouldn't be wrappers or scripts in /usr/bin. Ok looking at how convoluted we are having to get this package in.. what are the reasons to have it in Fedora? Would some other way of producing them having them available be there? Who is going to benefit from them being there? Etc Simply to make Fedora better. I'd like to make those available for our users. There are currently no other packages relying on this set (or rc, to be more specific) in Fedora. That could change in the future, though. The question is - why does having incompatible plan9 implementations of common commands make Fedora 'better', outside of having more stuff? You could say the same about most of Fedora packages. 'Better', giving people tools to use, to choose from. Fedora isn't one of those pure, minimalist distributions anyway. We have a lot of alternatives for a lot of stuff. Some do more, some do less, some do the same but differently. If that's good or not is a matter of opinion and the distribution goals. And by 'incompatible' you mean some scripts depend on GNU coreutils and therefore can't run with POSIX-only or Plan9 tools, I suppose. That's sad but not a fault of those other tools. -- # Petr Sabata pgpwCKVM6Ynrq.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 05:59:36PM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:36:10AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: The question is - why does having incompatible plan9 implementations of common commands make Fedora 'better', outside of having more stuff? You could say the same about most of Fedora packages. 'Better', giving people tools to use, to choose from. Fedora isn't one of those pure, minimalist distributions anyway. We have a lot of alternatives for a lot of stuff. Some do more, some do less, some do the same but differently. What would cause someone to choose to use these tools rather than the ones that exist in Fedora already? -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 17:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 05:59:36PM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:36:10AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: The question is - why does having incompatible plan9 implementations of common commands make Fedora 'better', outside of having more stuff? You could say the same about most of Fedora packages. 'Better', giving people tools to use, to choose from. Fedora isn't one of those pure, minimalist distributions anyway. We have a lot of alternatives for a lot of stuff. Some do more, some do less, some do the same but differently. What would cause someone to choose to use these tools rather than the ones that exist in Fedora already? They come from an environment where plan9 is more commonly used and want to preserve the behaviors they know/like? -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:56:25PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: What would cause someone to choose to use these tools rather than the ones that exist in Fedora already? They come from an environment where plan9 is more commonly used Rob Pike's house ? Dave -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 13:10 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:56:25PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: What would cause someone to choose to use these tools rather than the ones that exist in Fedora already? They come from an environment where plan9 is more commonly used Rob Pike's house ? If we're going to argue that a pkg is unacceptable b/c the number of people who care about it is ridiculously small, then I'd remind everyone that a 'linux desktop' using any of the desktop envs we provide in fedora is used by a tiny, tiny percentage of people. I keep forgetting who fedora is for. -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:56:25PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 17:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: What would cause someone to choose to use these tools rather than the ones that exist in Fedora already? They come from an environment where plan9 is more commonly used and want to preserve the behaviors they know/like? Putting them in your path's just going to break things. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
Hi. On Wed, 25 May 2011 13:18:20 -0400, seth vidal wrote I keep forgetting who fedora is for. It's not like the problem of having multiple implementations of basic UNIX command line tools has never come up before, though. Solaris has been doing that for quite a long time. http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E19253-01/816-5175/6mbba7f3l/index.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 01:42:02PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 18:41 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:56:25PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 17:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: What would cause someone to choose to use these tools rather than the ones that exist in Fedora already? They come from an environment where plan9 is more commonly used and want to preserve the behaviors they know/like? Putting them in your path's just going to break things. 'just going to break things' is the criteria, now? If they're used to plan9, they'll presumably want these in their path. If they're in their path, other utilities are going to misbehave in ways that will be difficult to debug. Why would someone choose to have a broken system? -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:14 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 01:42:02PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 18:41 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:56:25PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 17:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: What would cause someone to choose to use these tools rather than the ones that exist in Fedora already? They come from an environment where plan9 is more commonly used and want to preserve the behaviors they know/like? Putting them in your path's just going to break things. 'just going to break things' is the criteria, now? If they're used to plan9, they'll presumably want these in their path. If they're in their path, other utilities are going to misbehave in ways that will be difficult to debug. Why would someone choose to have a broken system? Oh cmon, Matthew, you can't be serious. just s/broken/development/ in your above statement and it is obvious. people want broken things b/c then they can fix them. -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:21:04PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:14 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: If they're used to plan9, they'll presumably want these in their path. If they're in their path, other utilities are going to misbehave in ways that will be difficult to debug. Why would someone choose to have a broken system? Oh cmon, Matthew, you can't be serious. just s/broken/development/ in your above statement and it is obvious. people want broken things b/c then they can fix them. If I get a bug complaining that something doesn't work because the user is using plan9 awk rather than gnu awk, they're going to get very firmly NOTABUGged. I hardly think I'm alone here. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: Putting them in your path's just going to break things. The plan is to have them _prefixed_ in your path, and un-prefixed in a specified directory so you can frob the path to run scripts that expect p9 utilities. I am not sure what this package specifically brings, but many p9 utilities have *very* interesting ideas. I have tested p9 before in VMs and I'll be installing this package (when it comes through) to poke around and see. m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:35 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:21:04PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:14 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: If they're used to plan9, they'll presumably want these in their path. If they're in their path, other utilities are going to misbehave in ways that will be difficult to debug. Why would someone choose to have a broken system? Oh cmon, Matthew, you can't be serious. just s/broken/development/ in your above statement and it is obvious. people want broken things b/c then they can fix them. If I get a bug complaining that something doesn't work because the user is using plan9 awk rather than gnu awk, they're going to get very firmly NOTABUGged. I hardly think I'm alone here. I think that's completely appropriate. But does that mean the pkg should stay out of the distro? -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:39:16PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:35 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: If I get a bug complaining that something doesn't work because the user is using plan9 awk rather than gnu awk, they're going to get very firmly NOTABUGged. I hardly think I'm alone here. I think that's completely appropriate. But does that mean the pkg should stay out of the distro? I don't think we should be shipping anything unless there's an expectation that using it in the intended manner won't break unrelated software. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:35:09PM -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: Putting them in your path's just going to break things. The plan is to have them _prefixed_ in your path, and un-prefixed in a specified directory so you can frob the path to run scripts that expect p9 utilities. I am not sure what this package specifically brings, but many p9 utilities have *very* interesting ideas. I have tested p9 before in VMs and I'll be installing this package (when it comes through) to poke around and see. I don't think 9base provides a great deal - it's just the Plan 9 version of the basic Unix shell utilities. If there's interesting and useful ideas in them it'd make more sense to work on porting the functionality to coreutils. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:53 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:39:16PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:35 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: If I get a bug complaining that something doesn't work because the user is using plan9 awk rather than gnu awk, they're going to get very firmly NOTABUGged. I hardly think I'm alone here. I think that's completely appropriate. But does that mean the pkg should stay out of the distro? I don't think we should be shipping anything unless there's an expectation that using it in the intended manner won't break unrelated software. /me waits for kkofler to chime in here wrt nm and various kde applets. -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 01:03, Petr Sabata con...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:59:27AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:35, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 09:28:02AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
There is no reason not to put them in /usr/lib(64). That's where common
binaries such as firefox, java, etc already reside. They all have magic
env variables to define their root for scripts and
symlinks/wrappers/alternatives in /usr/bin
In this case, though, there wouldn't be wrappers or scripts in /usr/bin.
Ok looking at how convoluted we are having to get this package in..
what are the reasons to have it in Fedora? Would some other way of
producing them having them available be there? Who is going to benefit
from them being there? Etc
Simply to make Fedora better. I'd like to make those available for our users.
There are currently no other packages relying on this set (or rc, to be more
specific) in Fedora. That could change in the future, though.
To be clear, my original question for putting them in is not that they
will break things or not. It is more does the headache of putting
them to meet FHS, LSB, MNOP standards too much? In the golden old days
I would put these in /usr/plan9 (like the old /usr/ucb or /usr/sysv
or /usr/kerberos) we used to have littered around. Or I would make
them prefixed p9 like I would prefix things g (for gnu), b (for bsd),
k (for kerberos). However that seems not acceptable these days
either.. so we end up with needing to put it in some poorly defined
place (/usr/libexec/plan9/{bin,lib,etc,etc}) that may or may not cause
even more howls somewhere else.
Do these required backflips make the software less usable than if you
had a repository (COPR?) where stuff landed in /usr/local/ or
/opt/plan9 that people could use without too many problems. Yes
fewer people would find it from your fedorapeople web page, but the
few people who know about plan9, want to use plan9 etc are going to
already be doing Web searches for the name.
--
# Petr Sabata
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle. -- Ian MacLaren
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 09:36, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote: Petr Sabata (con...@redhat.com) said: There is no reason not to put them in /usr/lib(64). That's where common binaries such as firefox, java, etc already reside. They all have magic env variables to define their root for scripts and symlinks/wrappers/alternatives in /usr/bin In this case, though, there wouldn't be wrappers or scripts in /usr/bin. Ok looking at how convoluted we are having to get this package in.. what are the reasons to have it in Fedora? Would some other way of producing them having them available be there? Who is going to benefit from them being there? Etc Simply to make Fedora better. I'd like to make those available for our users. There are currently no other packages relying on this set (or rc, to be more specific) in Fedora. That could change in the future, though. The question is - why does having incompatible plan9 implementations of common commands make Fedora 'better', outside of having more stuff? I vaguely recall the headaches we had in Rawhide at one point where we tried the experiment of moving to OpenBSD implementations of applications because several customers thought they were more secure. And they were in the OpenBSD environment. In the Linux environment they were very buggy and many many applications did not work the way they did in either OpenBSD or with GNU tools. We also tried putting them in an alternative path at one point, but this also caused issues for those users. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- Stephen J Smoogen. The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance. Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacLaren -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
ons 2011-05-25 klockan 19:14 +0100 skrev Matthew Garrett: If they're in their path, other utilities are going to misbehave in ways that will be difficult to debug. The user could add the directory to PATH without exporting PATH to subprocesses, or they could use the shell's alias functionality instead. Then it will only be used when they type the command name in their own shell. Actually, the user must make sure to do this after /etc/profile.d/* is sourced since those might break. I don't know in what way 9base is useful but I think the relevant questions here are: Would it be ok for a package to 1. Install a number of prefixed binaries in /usr/bin/ 2. Install a number of unprefixed binaries in /usr/lib/pkgname/bin/ 3. Install some files in /usr/share/pkgname/profile.d/ (or something) which are meant to be sourced in the user's shell ? Is /usr/lib/pkgname/bin ok for both arch in multilib? Or does it have to be /usr/lib64 on x86_64 for some reason? Btw, using shell aliases means that it won't even need to install anything in /usr/lib/*/bin. If something can be packaged in a way that will not break things even if the package is installed and won't increase the size of a minimal install through dependency creep then let them. :) /abo -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
Le Lun 23 mai 2011 17:55, Matthew Miller a écrit : On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 09:54:48AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: 1. install libraries (and binaries? see 3.) in /usr/lib(64) Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under the /usr hierarchy. 2. provide prefixed : — binaries or — symlinks to binaries in /usr/lib(64)/foo (see 3.) What about putting the binaries into /usr/bin/plan9/, instead of prefixing each one individually? The FHS 2.3 specifies that mh binaries should go into /usr/bin/mh, so there's precedent for subdirs there. (Not that our nmh package follows that rule) There is no reason not to put them in /usr/lib(64). That's where common binaries such as firefox, java, etc already reside. They all have magic env variables to define their root for scripts and symlinks/wrappers/alternatives in /usr/bin What the FHS says is that if you have a widely used binary, it should go in /usr/bin (because /usr/bin is in the standard path). /usr/bin/foo/ is *not* in the standard path so putting stuff there is rather pointless, does not win anything over /usr/lib(64)/foo/, and inconsistent with the rest of the system. Since we also already ship the environment-modules package, an env-module for plan 9 could be included; users who want the plan 9 binaries could either set their path manually or run module load plan9. This seems preferable to the alternatives system, since it's per-user rather than systemwide. alternative is only necessary if you want an un-prefixed binary in a common path such as /usr/bin. Nothing else will get you that cleanly (for weird versions of clean). If you do not require the possibility to have binaries exist in un-prefixed form in /usr/bin, don't ever touch alternatives. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On 20/05/11 14:17, Petr Sabata wrote:
Hi list,
I've been thinking about packaging 9base [1], a port of Plan 9 userspace
tools,
for Fedora. I'm interested in opinions on what style is better and why.
The problem is most of 9base binaries (and their manpages) have the same
name as their coreutils (and other) equivalents, therefore we need to install
them to somewhere else. Upstream suggests installing all its directories (bin,
share, lib, ...) into /usr/local. This is not acceptable for obvious reasons.
Options:
#1, aka the Gentoo way
Gentoo installs its 9base package into /usr/plan9, basically not touching
9base files at all. This collides with FHS and therefore would require an
exception in Packaging Guidelines.
#2, aka the Debian way
Debian installs its 9base package into /usr/lib. Well, most of it. They
also prefix all the manpages with 'plan9-', not the binaries, though.
This placement (provided we use %{_libdir}) introduces issues for Plan
9 rc shell scripts and their shebangs.
#3, aka the Fedora way?
Should we do this in some other way?
I personally like the #1 better since it's more clean (except for the required
FHS exception) and more or less aligned with upstream.
[1] http://tools.suckless.org/9base
What does busybox do?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 09:28:02AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: There is no reason not to put them in /usr/lib(64). That's where common binaries such as firefox, java, etc already reside. They all have magic env variables to define their root for scripts and symlinks/wrappers/alternatives in /usr/bin In this case, though, there wouldn't be wrappers or scripts in /usr/bin. -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional Research Computing Services Harvard School of Engineering Applied Sciences -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:35, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 09:28:02AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: There is no reason not to put them in /usr/lib(64). That's where common binaries such as firefox, java, etc already reside. They all have magic env variables to define their root for scripts and symlinks/wrappers/alternatives in /usr/bin In this case, though, there wouldn't be wrappers or scripts in /usr/bin. Ok looking at how convoluted we are having to get this package in.. what are the reasons to have it in Fedora? Would some other way of producing them having them available be there? Who is going to benefit from them being there? Etc -- Stephen J Smoogen. The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance. Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacLaren -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 09:36:52AM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:08:01AM +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
fre 2011-05-20 klockan 14:17 +0200 skrev Petr Sabata:
#1, aka the Gentoo way
Gentoo installs its 9base package into /usr/plan9, basically not
touching
9base files at all. This collides with FHS and therefore would
require an
exception in Packaging Guidelines.
About /usr, FHS has this to say:
Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under
the /usr hierarchy.
Now that's what I said, isn't it?
We'd need exceptions in our Guidelines (it's not like we don't have any at the
moment).
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY
#2, aka the Debian way
Debian installs its 9base package into /usr/lib. Well, most of it.
They
also prefix all the manpages with 'plan9-', not the binaries, though.
This placement (provided we use %{_libdir}) introduces issues for Plan
9 rc shell scripts and their shebangs.
/usr/lib/9base/bin, specifically.
And /usr/lib/9base/lib...
About /usr/lib in FHS:
Applications may use a single subdirectory under /usr/lib.
Well that sounds just like what we need.
But there's also this bit:
/usr/lib includes object files, libraries, and internal binaries
that are not intended to be executed directly by users or shell
scripts.
Which doesn't work in this case.
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLIBLIBRARIESFORPROGRAMMINGANDPA
#3, aka the Fedora way?
Should we do this in some other way?
Fedora + FHS doesn't seem to allow for any decent way of installing
multiple user-oriented binaries with the same name. I suggest adding a
prefix 9 or 9base- or similar to all the binaries and man pages. You
may even make /usr/bin/9base-foo a symlink into
/usr/lib/9base/bin/foo so the user can still add the other directory
to their PATH and have the short names.
No, that would be awful.
Not just that it would require our user to rewrite all p9 scripts she hopes to
use, it would also make her life really uncomfortable if she wanted to use
9base
instead of coreutils (e.g. by adding 9base-bin to PATH).
Ok, looks like I can't read.
Never mind this rant. It actually looks good!
If the prefix solution is not acceptable then #2 is the best alternative
because it's a smaller FHS violation and doesn't clutter /usr.
In case of #2:
What about the manpages?
What about the lib vs lib64 issue?
/abo
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
# Petr Sabata
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
# Petr Sabata
pgpWEN2SlWJgS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
The correct way to do this in Fedora and in the FHS is to : 1. install libraries (and binaries? see 3.) in /usr/lib(64) Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under the /usr hierarchy. 2. provide prefixed : — binaries or — symlinks to binaries in /usr/lib(64)/foo (see 3.) … in /usr/bin so binaries that are intended to be executed directly by users or shell scripts are exposed properly /usr/lib includes object files, libraries, and internal binaries that are not intended to be executed directly by users or shell scripts. 3. eventually use alternatives to switch between prefixed implementations (as do java for example, not that I recommand this particular can of worms it's a packager PITA) ; this requires cooperation between all the alternative implementation packages If there is no wish to switch the whole system implementation then your binaries are not “ intended to be executed directly by users or shell script ” and the few scripts that specifically require them can set a path pointing to /usr/lib(64)/foo So there is no need to panic, everything is provided for in the FHS, and no need to ask for an exception against “Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under the /usr hierarchy.” -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:21:09PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: Yeah, #1 sounds less awful. The other option is /opt/plan9, which might be more in the spirit of what the FHS says, but the packaging guidelines currently don't mention /opt at all. Please keep RPMs out of /opt. It's what sysadmins the world over use to dump proprietary vendor packages (Matlab, Mathmatica, CUDA, etc.), without fear of conflict with the package manager. -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional Research Computing Services Harvard School of Engineering Applied Sciences -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 09:54:48AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: 1. install libraries (and binaries? see 3.) in /usr/lib(64) Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under the /usr hierarchy. 2. provide prefixed : — binaries or — symlinks to binaries in /usr/lib(64)/foo (see 3.) What about putting the binaries into /usr/bin/plan9/, instead of prefixing each one individually? The FHS 2.3 specifies that mh binaries should go into /usr/bin/mh, so there's precedent for subdirs there. (Not that our nmh package follows that rule) Since we also already ship the environment-modules package, an env-module for plan 9 could be included; users who want the plan 9 binaries could either set their path manually or run module load plan9. This seems preferable to the alternatives system, since it's per-user rather than systemwide. -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional Research Computing Services Harvard School of Engineering Applied Sciences -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
Matthew Miller wrote: Since we also already ship the environment-modules package, an env-module for plan 9 could be included; users who want the plan 9 binaries could either set their path manually or run module load plan9. This seems preferable to the alternatives system, since it's per-user rather than systemwide. Alternatives is entirely unacceptable for this kind of core system binaries anyway. You break a lot of things if e.g. /bin/ls suddenly does something different. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 09:27:39PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: This seems preferable to the alternatives system, since it's per-user rather than systemwide. Alternatives is entirely unacceptable for this kind of core system binaries anyway. You break a lot of things if e.g. /bin/ls suddenly does something different. Absolutely. Preferable is an understatement. :) -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional Research Computing Services Harvard School of Engineering Applied Sciences -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
fre 2011-05-20 klockan 14:17 +0200 skrev Petr Sabata:
#1, aka the Gentoo way
Gentoo installs its 9base package into /usr/plan9, basically not touching
9base files at all. This collides with FHS and therefore would require an
exception in Packaging Guidelines.
About /usr, FHS has this to say:
Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under
the /usr hierarchy.
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY
#2, aka the Debian way
Debian installs its 9base package into /usr/lib. Well, most of it. They
also prefix all the manpages with 'plan9-', not the binaries, though.
This placement (provided we use %{_libdir}) introduces issues for Plan
9 rc shell scripts and their shebangs.
/usr/lib/9base/bin, specifically.
About /usr/lib in FHS:
Applications may use a single subdirectory under /usr/lib.
Well that sounds just like what we need.
But there's also this bit:
/usr/lib includes object files, libraries, and internal binaries
that are not intended to be executed directly by users or shell
scripts.
Which doesn't work in this case.
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLIBLIBRARIESFORPROGRAMMINGANDPA
#3, aka the Fedora way?
Should we do this in some other way?
Fedora + FHS doesn't seem to allow for any decent way of installing
multiple user-oriented binaries with the same name. I suggest adding a
prefix 9 or 9base- or similar to all the binaries and man pages. You
may even make /usr/bin/9base-foo a symlink into
/usr/lib/9base/bin/foo so the user can still add the other directory
to their PATH and have the short names.
If the prefix solution is not acceptable then #2 is the best alternative
because it's a smaller FHS violation and doesn't clutter /usr.
/abo
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
9base in Fedora?
Hi list,
I've been thinking about packaging 9base [1], a port of Plan 9 userspace tools,
for Fedora. I'm interested in opinions on what style is better and why.
The problem is most of 9base binaries (and their manpages) have the same
name as their coreutils (and other) equivalents, therefore we need to install
them to somewhere else. Upstream suggests installing all its directories (bin,
share, lib, ...) into /usr/local. This is not acceptable for obvious reasons.
Options:
#1, aka the Gentoo way
Gentoo installs its 9base package into /usr/plan9, basically not touching
9base files at all. This collides with FHS and therefore would require an
exception in Packaging Guidelines.
#2, aka the Debian way
Debian installs its 9base package into /usr/lib. Well, most of it. They
also prefix all the manpages with 'plan9-', not the binaries, though.
This placement (provided we use %{_libdir}) introduces issues for Plan
9 rc shell scripts and their shebangs.
#3, aka the Fedora way?
Should we do this in some other way?
I personally like the #1 better since it's more clean (except for the required
FHS exception) and more or less aligned with upstream.
[1] http://tools.suckless.org/9base
--
# Petr Sabata
pgpOPAvwcWaTG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: 9base in Fedora?
On 5/20/11 8:17 AM, Petr Sabata wrote:
#1, aka the Gentoo way
Gentoo installs its 9base package into /usr/plan9, basically not touching
9base files at all. This collides with FHS and therefore would require an
exception in Packaging Guidelines.
#2, aka the Debian way
Debian installs its 9base package into /usr/lib. Well, most of it. They
also prefix all the manpages with 'plan9-', not the binaries, though.
This placement (provided we use %{_libdir}) introduces issues for Plan
9 rc shell scripts and their shebangs.
#3, aka the Fedora way?
Should we do this in some other way?
I personally like the #1 better since it's more clean (except for the required
FHS exception) and more or less aligned with upstream.
Yeah, #1 sounds less awful.
The other option is /opt/plan9, which might be more in the spirit of
what the FHS says, but the packaging guidelines currently don't mention
/opt at all.
- ajax
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
