1 |
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:20 PM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>> Why the "gentoo" path component? That's not a package, and therefore |
5 |
>> not compliant with the FHS. (Or even worse, it actually _is_ a |
6 |
>> package, namely app-misc/gentoo.) |
7 |
|
8 |
> From FHS: |
9 |
> /var/lib/<name> is the location that must be used for all distribution |
10 |
> packaging support. Different distributions may use different names, of |
11 |
> course. |
12 |
|
13 |
> p34: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs-3.0.pdf |
14 |
|
15 |
It doesn't say that <name> must be the name of the distro, and I don't |
16 |
remember having seen either of /var/lib/{debian,redhat,suse}. We can |
17 |
use "repos" or whatever we like there. |
18 |
|
19 |
>> Here we're at 5 path components again. I will likely vote against any |
20 |
>> proposal that would put the tree such deep in the hierarchy. And the |
21 |
>> double "gentoo" adds some extra ugliness. |
22 |
|
23 |
> Well, /var/lib/<something> is 3 right there. If 5 is no good then you |
24 |
> only have one left. We could just make it /var/lib/repos which seems |
25 |
> non-compliant. |
26 |
|
27 |
FHS 3.0 says: "An application (or a group of inter-related |
28 |
applications) must use a subdirectory of /var/lib for its data". |
29 |
Certainly /var/lib/repos is a subdirectory of /var/lib? So why would |
30 |
it be non-compliant? And if it was, do we care about non-compliance at |
31 |
the third directory level? The important part is that we move it out |
32 |
of /usr, and IMHO we should care to get the /var/{lib,cache,db} part |
33 |
somewhat right. |
34 |
|
35 |
Ulrich |