The FHS /usr song (was: Core packages are using %config for files being installed under /usr)
Laurent Rineau
laurent.rineau__fedora_extras at normalesup.org
Fri Mar 2 11:08:38 UTC 2007
On Friday 02 March 2007 11:46:52 Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 11:26:40AM +0100, Laurent Rineau wrote:
> > On Friday 02 March 2007 11:17:53 Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 08:43:19AM +0100, Laurent Rineau wrote:
> > > > On Friday 02 March 2007 04:32:13 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > > > "/usr is the second major section of the filesystem. /usr is
> > > > > > shareable, read-only data.
> > > > >
> > > > > At one point in time, at "use-time".
> > > > >
> > > > > This doesn't mean the data on /usr is inaccessible to a maintainer,
> > > > > nor does this mean /usr to be "vendor-exclusive", nor does this
> > > > > mean /usr not to be customizable.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Ralf. A read-only filesystem is not read-only for the
> > > > system administrator: it can be turned read-write during
> > > > administration stages, for upgrades and configurations.
> > > >
> > > > Axel, do you agree with that? What is *really* your rational against
> > > > %config in /usr?
> > >
> > > Whether *I* agree with that or not (FWIW I don't) is completely
> > > irrelevant, the quote is from the FHS, not me, and we follow the FHS.
> >
> > What is wrong is your understanding of the FSH. Re-read Ralf's messages.
>
> Repeat after me with a gospel like preaching:
>
> a) "/usr is [...] read-only data."
> b) "[...] /usr [...] must not be written to."
> c) "Any information that is host-specific ..."
> The chorus in the background with a higher pitch:
> "~ and that includes configuration ~"
> "[...] is stored elsewhere."
I quote below the FHS version 2.3, given at
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.pdf
===== quote =====
Chapter 4. The /usr Hierarchy
4.1. Purpose
/usr is the second major section of the filesystem. /usr is shareable,
read-only data. That means that /usr
should be shareable between various FHS-compliant hosts and must not be
written to. Any information that is
host-specific or varies with time is stored elsewhere.
Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under the /usr
hierarchy.
===== end of quote =====
>From the sentence "Any information that is host-specific or varies with time is
stored elsewhere.", how could you understand that *sitewise* configuration
files must be in /etc?!
What is more, I quote the title of the section about /etc:
"3.7. /etc : Host-specific system configuration"
Here again, /etc/ is for host-specific stuff. So, sharable config files, that
are not be written to by the system, can go into /usr/, and should not be
in /etc (even the FSH states precisely that /etc is for host-specific stuff).
I really what a discussion. You may convince me and Ralf. But give good
reasons. AS far as I understand, the FSH does not state that sitewise config
files cannot be in /usr, and as far as I understand, the FSH states that
sitewise config could not be in /etc (be cause /etc is host specific).
What is wrong with my interpretation?
--
Laurent Rineau
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau
More information about the Fedora-maintainers
mailing list