On Fri, Aug 16, Florian Weimer wrote:
- Dusty Mabe:
The opensuse team reached out to us before to try to collaborate on a path forward for configuration files. They proposed this upstream to the fhs-discuss mailing list [1]. Now they have made a decision [2].
Should we try to join them?
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/fhs-discuss/2019-June/000509.htm... [2] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2019-08/msg00002.html
I already pointed out that /usr/etc and /etc with totally different purposes is confusing after UsrMove. I'm not sure why this point, while acknowledged initially, was ignored in the end.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove => /etc is a directory, not a symlink to /usr/etc. We couldn't find any definition of UsrMove, where /etc is a symlink to /usr/etc. Could be very well that somebody did it, but not by definition. More important was, that the absolut majority of people who gave feedback wanted /usr/etc, and the acceptance by many users wass more important than a few people where /etc is a symlink to /usr/etc. If the majority does not like the path, they will not follow. So the idea would be already fail on start. And you can just remove the /etc symlink and make it an own directory again, it should just work.
So we did not ignore it, but this sounded more like a theoretical problem and not a real one.
Thorsten
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 8:00 AM Thorsten Kukuk kukuk@suse.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, Florian Weimer wrote:
- Dusty Mabe:
The opensuse team reached out to us before to try to collaborate on a path forward for configuration files. They proposed this upstream to the fhs-discuss mailing list [1]. Now they have made a decision [2].
Should we try to join them?
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/fhs-discuss/2019-June/000509.htm... [2] https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2019-08/msg00002.html
I already pointed out that /usr/etc and /etc with totally different purposes is confusing after UsrMove. I'm not sure why this point, while acknowledged initially, was ignored in the end.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove => /etc is a directory, not a symlink to /usr/etc. We couldn't find any definition of UsrMove, where /etc is a symlink to /usr/etc. Could be very well that somebody did it, but not by definition. More important was, that the absolut majority of people who gave feedback wanted /usr/etc, and the acceptance by many users wass more important than a few people where /etc is a symlink to /usr/etc. If the majority does not like the path, they will not follow. So the idea would be already fail on start. And you can just remove the /etc symlink and make it an own directory again, it should just work.
So we did not ignore it, but this sounded more like a theoretical problem and not a real one.
A small update here, I've merged the new %_distconfdir macro into rpm-config-SUSE[1], and Thorsten has restored /usr/etc to openSUSE's filesystem package[2].
Do we want to do the same on the Fedora side? I can easily prepare the PRs for filesystem and redhat-rpm-config...
[1]: https://github.com/openSUSE/rpm-config-SUSE/pull/15 [2]: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/724754
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
More important was, that the absolut majority of people who gave feedback wanted /usr/etc, and the acceptance by many users wass more important than a few people where /etc is a symlink to /usr/etc.
Discussion on this is scattered around a whole bunch of places; I probably would have done something like a github gist or hackmd.io doc, or just a generic web page, and linked the mail discussions to that.
The Subject line of this email is "Re: FYI: opensuse decision regarding configuration files in /etc and /usr/etc" which makes me think a decision was made, but what is it exactly?
We have a fairly nontrivial stake in this outcome given that OSTree has been shipping /usr/etc for *years* and it's worked quite successfully.
coreos@lists.fedoraproject.org