-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I've just submitted a review request[1] for Nix[2], a purely functional package manager.
Nix uses the /nix directory by default for essential operations -- its package store, for instance, is located at /nix/store by default, and it's local state in /nix/var.
These can be overridden at compile time, however, doing so makes it impossible to use pre-built binaries[3] provided in Nix channels (repositories).
As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for creating a new directory under root -- cf. the introduction of /run, as documented in Fedora 15's release notes[4]:
This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, which allows distributions to create new directories in the root hierarchy as long as there is careful consideration of the consequences.
I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built binaries, and the reduced usefulness of the tool without this compatibility (anyone who has used MacPorts, with its lack of pre-built binaries, would sympathize).
Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827289 [2]: http://nixos.org/nix/ [3]: http://hydra.nixos.org/build/2657151/download/1/manual/#id523917 [4]: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/15/html/Release_Notes/sect-Releas...
Thanks in advance,
- -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma@fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A Jabber: hircus@jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus@irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I've just submitted a review request[1] for Nix[2], a purely functional package manager.
Nix uses the /nix directory by default for essential operations -- its package store, for instance, is located at /nix/store by default, and it's local state in /nix/var.
These can be overridden at compile time, however, doing so makes it impossible to use pre-built binaries[3] provided in Nix channels (repositories).
As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for creating a new directory under root -- cf. the introduction of /run, as documented in Fedora 15's release notes[4]:
This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, which allows distributions to create new directories in the root hierarchy as long as there is careful consideration of the consequences.I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built binaries, and the reduced usefulness of the tool without this compatibility (anyone who has used MacPorts, with its lack of pre-built binaries, would sympathize).
Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think it will be a close or negative vote.
Also, there was talk about whether Fedora should allow alternate package managers (meaning system-wide package managers that work with formats that are not rpm ie: dpkg or apt-get that works with .debs [not the apt-get rpm port].) I do not remember what the decision was there.
Lastly, the release notes do not accurately reflect the reason that the FPC chose to allow /run.
-Toshio
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 06/02/2012 11:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for creating a new directory under root -- cf. the introduction of /run, as documented in Fedora 15's release notes[4]:
This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, which allows distributions to create new directories in the root hierarchy as long as there is careful consideration of the consequences.
I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built binaries, and the reduced usefulness of the tool without this compatibility (anyone who has used MacPorts, with its lack of pre-built binaries, would sympathize).
Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think it will be a close or negative vote.
OK, I probably shouldn't try then if there's almost no chance of it going through. So this should be something for RPM Fusion, I suppose? (under the "packages that are FLOSS and has no legal issue but are not allowed by packaging standards, e.g. kmod kernel modules)
Also, there was talk about whether Fedora should allow alternate package managers (meaning system-wide package managers that work with formats that are not rpm ie: dpkg or apt-get that works with .debs [not the apt-get rpm port].) I do not remember what the decision was there.
Hmm. While alternate package managers that install to locations that would conflict with the default package manager (which would be the case with dpkg), nix just creates symlinks in the user directory -- people have been running it on Debian/Ubuntu with no problem. It's less intrusive than even MacPorts, and is about the same as, say, python-pip and zeroinstall-injector.
I'd argue it in an FPC meeting if it's just the concern about alternate package managers, but the /nix layout is probably a deal-breaker.
Lastly, the release notes do not accurately reflect the reason that the FPC chose to allow /run.
Ah. I *was* a bit surprised to find that rationale there, ISTR the debate was a bit more heated there.
Thanks,
- -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma@fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A Jabber: hircus@jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus@irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 06/02/2012 11:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I've just submitted a review request[1] for Nix[2], a purely functional package manager.
Nix uses the /nix directory by default for essential operations -- its package store, for instance, is located at /nix/store by default, and it's local state in /nix/var.
...
Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827289 [2]: http://nixos.org/nix/ [3]: http://hydra.nixos.org/build/2657151/download/1/manual/#id523917 [4]: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/15/html/Release_Notes/sect-Releas...
Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think it will be
a close or negative vote.
Filed a ticket:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/180
Will take it to RPM Fusion if the request is voted down; at the very least there'd be a precedent for similar packages.
Thanks,
- -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma@fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A Jabber: hircus@jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus@irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
On 06/02/2012 07:40 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 06/02/2012 11:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for creating a new directory under root -- cf. the introduction of /run, as documented in Fedora 15's release notes[4]:
This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, which allows distributions to create new directories in the root hierarchy as long as there is careful consideration of the consequences.
I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built binaries, and the reduced usefulness of the tool without this compatibility (anyone who has used MacPorts, with its lack of pre-built binaries, would sympathize).
Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think it will be a close or negative vote.
OK, I probably shouldn't try then if there's almost no chance of it going through. So this should be something for RPM Fusion, I suppose?
RPM Fusion is supposed to follow the Fedora packing rules. => This would not be an option for you.
Also, there was talk about whether Fedora should allow alternate package managers (meaning system-wide package managers that work with formats that are not rpm ie: dpkg or apt-get that works with .debs [not the apt-get rpm port].) I do not remember what the decision was there.
I don't recall such discussion. I recall a general discussion interaction with some language's "installers" (Python, ruby (gems), etc).
With regard to them, there had been consensus of "all installers" must properly interact with rpm", esp. must all installations they excercise be reflected into rpm's db.
IMO, the same consideration applies to "alternative package installers". In particular, do several, separate, independent installation db's not make any sense.
Lastly, the release notes do not accurately reflect the reason that the FPC chose to allow /run.
Well, ... unfortunately, yes.
I can live with this decision (It's not worth to make a fuzz about it), nevertheless, I consider this decision to be a serious mistake and would be highly in favor of it being revisited and be reverted.
Ralf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 06/04/2012 09:49 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 06/02/2012 07:40 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 06/02/2012 11:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for creating a new directory under root -- cf. the introduction of /run, as documented in Fedora 15's release notes[4]:
This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, which allows distributions to create new directories in the root hierarchy as long as there is careful consideration of the consequences.
I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built binaries, and the reduced usefulness of the tool without this compatibility (anyone who has used MacPorts, with its lack of pre-built binaries, would sympathize).
Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think it will be a close or negative vote.
OK, I probably shouldn't try then if there's almost no chance of it going through. So this should be something for RPM Fusion, I suppose?
RPM Fusion is supposed to follow the Fedora packing rules. => This would not be an option for you.
Thanks. They do allow akmods though, so I'm not sure exactly where they draw the line. But I think I should take into account the possibility that it won't get in there either, and maintain a separate repo for it (*not* on fedorapeople, of course)
Also, there was talk about whether Fedora should allow alternate package managers (meaning system-wide package managers that work with formats that are not rpm ie: dpkg or apt-get that works with .debs [not the apt-get rpm port].) I do not remember what the decision was there.
I don't recall such discussion. I recall a general discussion interaction with some language's "installers" (Python, ruby (gems), etc).
With regard to them, there had been consensus of "all installers" must properly interact with rpm", esp. must all installations they excercise be reflected into rpm's db.
Python's doesn't, I thought? There is some integration but it's the other way around -- that RPM-provided Python modules are "seen" by easy_install and pip.
IMO, the same consideration applies to "alternative package installers". In particular, do several, separate, independent installation db's not make any sense.
Lastly, the release notes do not accurately reflect the reason that the FPC chose to allow /run.
Well, ... unfortunately, yes.
I can live with this decision (It's not worth to make a fuzz about it), nevertheless, I consider this decision to be a serious mistake and would be highly in favor of it being revisited and be reverted.
I personally think they could have just used /var/run for that ...
Thanks,
- -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma@fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A Jabber: hircus@jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus@irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Michel Alexandre Salim -
Ralf Corsepius -
Toshio Kuratomi