Re: [kde] setting an /opt precedent
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 17 January 2002 23:11, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>
> When you run, say, "apt-get install kde", you are not given any hints at
> that time about exactly what files will be removed, replaced, etc.
> (except for the special case of conffiles). The only guide you have
> there is the FHS and Debian policy; for example, you can assume with a
> fair bit of confidence that installed-from-tarball KDE apps in /usr will
> be overwritten, because that's where the FHS says that a vendor can muck
> about at will. Similarly, you can assume with confidence that KDE apps
> in /usr/local will not be so overwritten.
>
> Users read in the FHS a reassurance that a vendor cannot overwrite
> anything the admin sticks in /opt without asking permission. Therefore,
> any package that installs files in /opt needs to check that those files
> don't exist already and prompt the admin if they do.
>
Yes, sort of like what kernel packages do. It would be very annoying if KDE
packages did that for instance. Certainly not acceptable.
> In short (as someone else has already joked), all files packages install
> to /opt need to be treated as conffiles per the FHS. This would
> definitely be an abuse of the conffile system.
>
:) That would be a far-fetched abuse.
> > It would seem to imply for instance if I have installed a package foo in
> > /opt/foo, the system must not overwrite files in /opt/foo without my
> > knowledge. However, this paragraph doesn't seem to be very consistent to
> > me since distributions can be said to provide the "assent of local system
> > administrator" in any case... It's a matter of interpretation.
>
> If you interpret package installation as explicit assent from the
> sysadmin to violate policy, then you have just nullified policy in its
> entirety. Without a policy, we can do anything we want, including
> install KDE to /opt. :-)
>
No, I would lean to interpreting package installation as explicit assent to
overwrite files contained in the package, and removal to remove files.
> Somehow, I doubt that was the intended meaning of the FHS.
>
I see. However, it is not very clear whether that phrase has any meaning. If
it's going to be practically impossible for distributions to install files in
/opt, why is it allowed in the first place? If it's going to be possible for
a local system administrator to form his own packages under various
/opt/<package> then why isn't a location in /usr/local adapted for this
purpose? Who is going to maintain the packages under an /opt/<package>?
System software or the local administrator? That paragraph doesn't seem to be
consistent at all, and it isn't a good division of responsibility.
>
> Policy is frozen, as it should be. Take the issue back up after woody
> releases.
Ah, sure. It's frozen already. I must append another line to the never
finishing TODO list. :)
Thanks,
- --
Eray Ozkural (exa) <erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr>
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8R0FxfAeuFodNU5wRAqr0AJ9fDzwxzO6vyLIjSG+RLguTK8VuAQCfdfn5
0MmHMT0WBhfvQtB6izKx4vQ=
=ypB0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: