The FHS /usr song (was: Core packages are using %config for files being installed under /usr)

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:39:09PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 12:11 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 10:47:18PM -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > > How exactly do you propose packages should install anything under /usr
> > > if its readonlyness is so sacrosanct ? Does it at least occur to you
> > > that it cannot be readonly at install time ?
> > 
> > Please don't be so literate, we already looped twice around the world
> > explaining this. If you read it letter by letter and ignore FHS'
> > intentions you may indeed logically conclude that /usr would be an
> > empty filesystem, but try reading the full context.
> > 
> > The bottom line is: Don't %config/%config(noreplace) files under /usr.
> 
> 1. When will you finally understand that rpm's %config has nothing to do
> with configurating a system. %config only specifies rpm's behavior upon
> handling of backups upon install.

First of all, since I didn't even mention the word "configuration" in
the above (fully quoted), please stop jumping to conclusions. Secondly
if a packager specifies %config* in the specfile he assumes that
something outside his control will regularily modify this file, so rpm
needs to properly cater for that.

And that's what's relevant *the assumption that this file has to be
outside of the packager's control*. Now you tell me what kind of files
these are. We don't usually %config* stuff under /var (in fcat we
don't even mention 99% of the logfiles in package manifests), so that
leaves us with ...? Yes, say it ... It's not that difficult ...

No? Well, I tried. But you are the one that would %config all
bash/python/perl/init scripts anyway, so no use in trying to convince
you, I guess.

> 2. When a file-system is read-only, rpm can neither install the files,
> nor create backups => The fact a file is marked %config is completely
> irrelevant.

What's the above got to do with anything? Sounds a bit like your X11
quote ...
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070305/8b449a47/attachment.sig>