Re: kde and files location
Hi,
[Moving this to policy]
>>"Fabrizio" == Fabrizio Polacco <fpolacco@icenet.fi> writes:
Fabrizio> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> We, collectively, are Debian. We do not write most of the software
>> we offer; we package it. We can't decide when we are the
>> distribution and when the software comes from the author directly
>> depending on whether we want it to go under /opt.
Fabrizio> Well, I think we should. Under the actual scheme, we put
Fabrizio> software "foo" inside the distribution or under /opt only
Fabrizio> depending the fact that the package maintainer is a debian
Fabrizio> developer or not. We should instead fix a clear and more
Fabrizio> objective way to distinguish the cases.
No, this is not correct. We, as Debian, *Never* put things
under /opt. Other people (not Debian) do. Software on Debian FTP
sites *never* goes into /opt. This seems a clear and objective
distinction.
Fabrizio> Please note that we doesn't have a policy explayning third
Fabrizio> parties how they should package their software in a .deb
Fabrizio> when they want to directly distribute it. We should do this,
Fabrizio> firstly.
The packaging manual should be a good start, followed by the
policy manual, which may still serve as a guideline. The only
difference I see is that third parties may use /opt, if they wish.
Fabrizio> I think we should identify those packages that are
Fabrizio> "external" of the OS ( a good discriminant would be: the
Fabrizio> author wants to distribute it in .deb format and asks us
Fabrizio> where in the fs should be program reside: we would say "put
Fabrizio> in /opt")
Good enough. If the author is packaging it on their own, it is
third party software. Debian is not involved.
Fabrizio> and, when packaging it by ourself, act as if we
Fabrizio> were the author.
BZZZZZZZZZZzt. Nope. The minute *we* (the Debian project)
package it, it is no longer third party software, and can't go in
/opt. The minute Debian gets involved, you loose third party
status. No ifs, and, and buts. The is no ambiguity here.
Fabrizio> The fact that a package then goes or not in
Fabrizio> our CD or ftp site depends ONLY from its licensing scheme
Fabrizio> (and from the trust we put on its maintainer), not from the
Fabrizio> fact that the maintainer has an account on master or not!
No, if a package goes on our FTP site, it means that it is a
Debian product. If any person puts up .deb files on their own
elsewhere, the Debian project, as an entity, is not involved, and is
not responsible for it.
Fabrizio> we are now only talking about "optional" programs that could
Fabrizio> be or not in the distribution.
Optional is a bad choice of words. We are talking about
packages whether they are distributed by Debian, or not. If not, they
are not strictly governed by Debian rules; they may use /opt. If it
is distributed by Debian, it is not third party software, it no
longer can use /opt. See?
Fabrizio> But let's take the "bind" example. We all agree that "bind"
Fabrizio> should be part of the OS, but its licensing scheme doesn't
Fabrizio> permit us to put it even in non-free (if I remember
Fabrizio> well). Imagine we could convince bind's people to package it
Fabrizio> in .deb format and distribute it directly. Should it, for
Fabrizio> that fact, go under /opt? I think that we want bind be
Fabrizio> inside the OS, so we would like to tell them to package it
Fabrizio> for /usr.
It is then third party software. Debian does not want to
distribute it. Other people may. Other people are third parties (by
definition). Third parties may use /opt (from the FHS). Therefore,
bind may go in /opt. Packages is /opt are also part os the system,
when installed. They are just third party software, not from the OS
vendor (Debian in this case).
Fabrizio> I would like to distinguish the difference from the OS and
Fabrizio> "external" programs and the debian "distribution" and
Fabrizio> external distributions (means not from our ftp site) of
Fabrizio> packages.
Everything on the Debian FTP site is from the OS vendor
(Debian). .deb packages not on the ftp site are third party
software. Clear?
>> Yes, it has come, except *We*, as the Debian project, the OS
>> distributor, do not populate it.
Fabrizio> You are right: the Os vendor should not populate it. But why
Fabrizio> then we are populating the /usr of all the programs we are
Fabrizio> able to find out there that weren't yet in .deb format?
We are the OS vendor. What we package goes in /usr. We are not
third parties.
Fabrizio> I'm not proposing that "debian" populate /opt .
Good.
Fabrizio> I'm proposing that "optional" and "external" programs
Fabrizio> populate it, and I ask you to recognise that a part of the
Fabrizio> programs we are now distributing INSIDE the OS falls into
Fabrizio> that category, and therefore should be put under /opt ,
Fabrizio> without any consideration if the package maintainer is the
Fabrizio> author or not, or if he is a debian developer or not.
Sorry. Re-read the FHS. It says third pary software. Debian,
as far as the Debian distribution is concerned, is the OS vendor. It
can't be the third party.
Fabrizio> I can imagine myself as wearing the "debian's hat" when
Fabrizio> maintaining groff or man, and wearing a different hat when
Fabrizio> maintaining qweb. Qweb's .deb is also distributed from his
Fabrizio> author's home page.
No problem. You, as an individual, have two hats: Debian
developer, and third party developer. The difference is in that qweb
is not part of Debian, and is not on our FTP site. Put qweb in /opt
is you wish.
Fabrizio> Next version would became commercial
Fabrizio> (sigh!) but his author has expressed the wish of continuing
Fabrizio> to distribute a .deb from his home page. I could maintain
Fabrizio> it, as a favour to a friend, not as a debian developer. But
Fabrizio> I'm a debian developer, and I could also upload it to
Fabrizio> master, if the license permits its inclusion in contrib or
Fabrizio> non-free. So what?
The minute you upload it to Master, it becomes a Debian
product, and you may no longer put it in /opt.
Fabrizio> Do you see the confusion that could come from this? It could
Fabrizio> be in /usr or must go in /opt depending on the accidental
Fabrizio> fact that the author has a friend that is a debian
Fabrizio> developer. This is pure silliness!
No, the silliness comes from the fact you do not have a clear
idea what a Debian product is. Just putting something in a .deb
format does not make it a Debian product. Uploading it to our FTP
site (and, implicitly or explicitly, being approved by the project)
makes is a Debian product.
Fabrizio> I think we should set a policy saying "when" and "why" a
Fabrizio> program should be packaged for /opt and "when" and "why" for
Fabrizio> /usr. We should also set a policy explaining third parties
Fabrizio> on how to do so.
If it isa produced by Debian, and distributed from out FTP
site, it is a Debian product, and not a third party product, and thus
cannot use /opt. Period.
manoj
--
"Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science
fiction listen to weather forecasts and economists?" Kelvin Throop,
III
Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:srivasta@acm.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Reply to: