Am 30.01.2021 um 19:41 schrieb Fabio Valentini
<decathorpe(a)gmail.com>:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 7:24 PM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Am 30.01.2021 um 17:45 schrieb Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
<devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>:
>>
>> On 30.01.2021 16:58, Peter Boy wrote:
>>> But it’s perfectly usable for Fedora Workstation or Server and almost
indispensable for some development projects, e.g. Java (and vi/vim for a terminal
environment). Why should alternatives not be usable there? Or what is a suitable and
adequate replacement?
>>
>>
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Alternatives/
>
> Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I don’t see a connection to immutable Fedora (it
is about drop-in, user configurable, etc). Or do I miss something?
If you read the Packaging Guidelines, they actually explicitly mention
that vi / vim are a bad example for using the alternatives system -
because they're not drop-in replacements.
Yes, I got that (and mentioned the drop-in criteria), but the original post can /could be
interpreted as, alternatives is / has to be altogether "banned" from Fedora.
And that seems to me to be the trigger of the discussion here.
Additionally, as far as I know, OSTree based Fedora variants do not
execute any RPM scriptlets, but implement their own handling of e.g.
ldconfig and such things.
And alternatives is definitely not compatible with OSTree - according
to these bug reports, at least Java alternatives are broken -
apparently primarily because OSTree stores configuration in /var
instead of /etc:
Yes, but what will we do about it? The fix mentioned previously (manually symlink) is not
as powerful as alternatives. But it may be a bad idea to remove alternatives from
workstation (and server) just because it doesn’t work with silverblue. That’s the core of
discussion here.
Peter