-----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) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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-----
