> Am 17.01.2022 um 05:16 schrieb Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com>: > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 3:59 PM Peter Boy <p...@uni-bremen.de> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Am 14.01.2022 um 23:51 schrieb Fabio Valentini <decatho...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> >>> Wait, I thought this change was about making the path consistent >>> within Fedora variants? >> >> The question still is whether this is actually useful and beneficial. > > If you value Fedora having a snapshot and rollback scheme of some > kind, it's useful and beneficial. If you don't, then the change is > neutral because it has not a single technical downside presented so > far - just emotive ones.
The loss of LSB / FHS compliance is by no means "just emotive", nor is the consequence of probably having to adapt an unknown number of scripts, backup routines, etc. . As you stated in a previous post, LVM snapshot is „under-developed“ and therefore currently not useful. Is there another snapshot & rollback tool in Fedora repository I can use out of the box (after I moved rpm db to /usr)? Unfortunately, I don’t know one. Currently I would have to create a LVM snapshot and a manually crafted selective backup of files and subdirectories. And test all the stuff. Not particularly practical. I guess, an achievement of a truly viable snapshot and rollback system for file-based distributions requires far a greater number of relocations than just the rpm db. The article of a (presumably) Suse employee I’m trying to retrieve (see an earlier post of mine) offers a proposal for this very purpose (including a backwards compatibility link system). This would eventually end up in an FHS 4.x. Moving the rpm db alone adds only disadvantages to file-based distributions, not a single advantage. And it is not neutral either. In the end, we don't really need to do anything. If I understand correctly, rpm-ostree is already implementing the change anyway, without any change voting, and everyone else will continue as before, following LSB/FHS and the current Fedora guidelines. > Again if you see no value in snapshots/rollbacks, you don't see the > advantage. If you like the idea, then you'd also necessarily come to > realize that some pressure on organizing files into locations with > compatible life cycles, so those locations can be independently rolled > back. I see a lot of value in snapshot&rollback systems. And I see not only „some“ pressure (or better requirements) to reorganise files into different locations. The rpm db is far from sufficient. The proposal mentioned above did exactly that, but rpm db did not end up in /usr but together with parts of /var and /etc somewhere else I don’t remember in detail. And if we make adjustments to achieve a snapshot/rollback system, then we should do it right and not stop halfway unfinished. Peter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
