Re: Bug#35655: Grub package violates filesystem standard
Gordon Matzigkeit <gord@trick.fig.org> writes:
> >>>>> Steve Dunham writes:
> SD> This version of the grub package installs stuff in "/share".
> I don't know any better place for it, since /sbin/grub will be an
> essential system utility, and it requires some arch-independent files
> to work correctly.
> What if the /usr partition cannot be mounted? I think that /sbin/grub
> should still work.
> SD> Technically, "/usr/share/grub" would also be inappropriate,
> SD> because it is for arch independent files.)
> OKUJI and I already had this discussion. There is no such thing as an
> `arch-independent file', only files that have the same contents
> regardless of the architecture they are installed on.
But, by the same argument, we can put all the X shared libraries in
"/usr/share/X11/i386-linux".
> /share/grub/i386-pc has the same contents, regardless of the
> architecture that GRUB is installed on, and so I believe it belongs in
> /share.
I still don't like the idea of adding a directory to the root for the
sake of one package - especially when the argument for using /share
instead of /lib is not very strong.
> As an aside, GRUB is quite a pathological package, because of its
> peculiar relationship to the kernel. LILO is somewhat simpler, but
> even it is an exception to the FSSTND and FHS.
> If you wish, please take this issue to debian-policy, with a
> suggestion of where I should put GRUB's files, and we can debate it
> there. As it stands, I'm happy with how things work, and don't see
> them as a bug.
I really, really don't like the addition of /share to the root
directory. One alternative would be a directory under /lib
(e.g. /lib/grub) for the pristine copy of stage[12] or in an
additional directory under /boot (e.g. have both the copy that is
modified by /sbin/grub and the original in /boot).
I've cc'd debian-policy, if they don't care, I'll let it slide.
Steve
dunham@cse.msu.edu
Reply to: