Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Any reason for that? Aesthetics aren't a very compelling argument IMO,
> and the FHS also seems to favor the current layout (in my
> interpretation at least, as we're not really talking about
> "inter-related applications" in technical terms).
I agree with you, there is no technical relation, i.e. those applications are
stand-alone, but I also think that the "link" is their role, they are all
used for administrative purposes *inside* a Gentoo distribution ("inside"
might be the right keyword to justify a little deviation from the FHS).
In the opposite direction, in according to your opinion, I don't see a reason
to have /var/lib/gentoo/news instead of something like /var/lib/gentoo-news.
Fabio
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Philip Webb wrote: > > /var/lib/eselect -- here > > /var/lib/gentoo/enews > > /var/lib/herdstat/ > > /var/lib/module-rebuild -- here > > /var/lib/portage -- here > > It looks neater & simpler to understand in the long run, > provided it doesn't break anyone's system in the short run. > BTW I have only the 3 entries I have marked above. gentoo/news comes along with portage 2.1.6.x, herdstat could be deleted as suggested by Duncan. Fabio
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Duncan wrote: > Except that... in theory, some or all of those apps could technically be > used on/for other distributions and platforms as well. Yes, this is the theory but I think they'll be never ported to other distributions. > Few/none of the other apps, regardless of which distribution they started > on, are in directories based on distribution name, I don't believe it > fits FHS (as genone pointed out), and while there may be reasons to break > standards on occasion, they need to be pretty good to justify the hassle > and confusion, and frankly, I just don't see this as being that good. Honestly the current situation is a little confused, this is the reason of my proposal. Until those applications are used *only* inside gentoo I wouldn't bother about FHS because it has been thought to uniform the filesystem between all the distribution on the market and this makes sense when you have *common* application installed. > Portage is certainly a candidate for other distributions/platforms, and > eselect and genkernel (I guess that's what owns module-rebuild?) could be > as well, particularly on Gentoo based distributions. module-rebuild is a standalone package supported also by linux-mod.eclass. Its purpose is the recompilation of modules after a kernel upgrade. It's also true that this utility might be substituted (with portage 2.1.6.4) with $(emerge /lib/modules). > Herdstat doesn't appear to be in the Gentoo tree any longer, so that can > be eliminated from the list. Yes, you're right. > Even the one that's currently under gentoo, enews, arguably doesn't > belong there, since I see files from other overlays there, and some > overlays are independent and may be in fact ultimately targeted primarily > at distributions other than Gentoo. I suppose that someone was thinking about collecting all gentoo related files in a common place when /var/lib/gentoo/news was introduced. Fabio
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:55:39 +0100
Fabio Rossi wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote:
>
> > Any reason for that? Aesthetics aren't a very compelling argument
> > IMO, and the FHS also seems to favor the current layout (in my
> > interpretation at least, as we're not really talking about
> > "inter-related applications" in technical terms).
>
> I agree with you, there is no technical relation, i.e. those
> applications are stand-alone, but I also think that the "link" is
> their role, they are all used for administrative purposes *inside* a
> Gentoo distribution ("inside" might be the right keyword to justify a
> little deviation from the FHS).
The same could be said about /var/lib/init.d, /var/lib/dhcp,
/var/lib/iptables or several other packages that aren't hosted by
Gentoo. In the other direction, if the packages are eventually used on
other distributions/systems, should they then use another path?
Mind that this only addresses the FHS part of my mail, you haven't
really answered my question: What's the benefit of changing things?
Change for the sake of change is rarely a good idea (unless you work in
PR/marketing ;)
> In the opposite direction, in according to your opinion, I don't see
> a reason to have /var/lib/gentoo/news instead of something
> like /var/lib/gentoo-news.
Right. But retroactively changing GLEP 42 and all affected packages is
a bit much just to avoid a generic "gentoo" directory.
Marius
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote: > The same could be said about /var/lib/init.d, /var/lib/dhcp, > /var/lib/iptables or several other packages that aren't hosted by > Gentoo. In the other direction, if the packages are eventually used on > other distributions/systems, should they then use another path? The path could be configured of course but, again, I see a few chances of having this tools outside gentoo, the proposal is based also on this idea. > Mind that this only addresses the FHS part of my mail, you haven't > really answered my question: What's the benefit of changing things? > Change for the sake of change is rarely a good idea (unless you work in > PR/marketing ;) The main benefit is a cleaner filesystem, I don't know your opinion but I hate to see sparse files around the tree and waste time in discovering their source :-) Moreover IMHO it gives me the impression of a better design. > > In the opposite direction, in according to your opinion, I don't see > > a reason to have /var/lib/gentoo/news instead of something > > like /var/lib/gentoo-news. > > Right. But retroactively changing GLEP 42 and all affected packages is > a bit much just to avoid a generic "gentoo" directory. So we can exploit this condition to collect all gentoo related files inside this dir ;-) Fabio
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:00:35 +0100 Fabio Rossi wrote: > On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote: > > > The same could be said about /var/lib/init.d, /var/lib/dhcp, > > /var/lib/iptables or several other packages that aren't hosted by > > Gentoo. In the other direction, if the packages are eventually used > > on other distributions/systems, should they then use another path? > > The path could be configured of course but, again, I see a few > chances of having this tools outside gentoo, the proposal is based > also on this idea. > > > Mind that this only addresses the FHS part of my mail, you haven't > > really answered my question: What's the benefit of changing things? > > Change for the sake of change is rarely a good idea (unless you > > work in PR/marketing ;) > > The main benefit is a cleaner filesystem, I don't know your opinion > but I hate to see sparse files around the tree and waste time in > discovering their source :-) Moreover IMHO it gives me the impression > of a better design. Ok, so in other word aesthetics. > > > In the opposite direction, in according to your opinion, I don't > > > see a reason to have /var/lib/gentoo/news instead of something > > > like /var/lib/gentoo-news. > > > > Right. But retroactively changing GLEP 42 and all affected packages > > is a bit much just to avoid a generic "gentoo" directory. > > So we can exploit this condition to collect all gentoo related files > inside this dir ;-) Well, the impact is about the same wether you want to change one or the other (btw, what about other admin tools on Gentoo, e.g. paludis/pkgcore, by your definition they'd also have to go into /var/lib/gentoo, right?), and that impact is non-trivial (it's not so much the code changes themselves but the inevitable transition problems). Compared to the IMO very questionable benefit of a "cleaner" filesystem (by hiding files users usually don't see anyway one level deeper in the tree structure) that more or less goes against the FHS, that doesn't sound like a good deal to me. Marius
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
Fabio Rossi wrote: On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Duncan wrote: Except that... in theory, some or all of those apps could technically be used on/for other distributions and platforms as well. Yes, this is the theory but I think they'll be never ported to other distributions. sabayon doesn't use these apps? How about gentoo based livecds, etc. ? -Jeremy
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote: > Well, the impact is about the same wether you want to change one or the > other (btw, what about other admin tools on Gentoo, e.g. > paludis/pkgcore, by your definition they'd also have to go > into /var/lib/gentoo, right?) Yes. So you don't think that a /var/lib/ directory makes sense for collecting all admin files *strictly* related to the distribution, do you? If portage/paludis/pkgcore were used in other distributions I'd not consider their files related to the admin purposes of one specific distrib, at that point their files could be directly put inside /var/lib. > and that impact is non-trivial (it's not so much the code changes themselves > but the inevitable transition problems). This might be the real issue, the transition problems generated by the move. > Compared to the IMO very questionable benefit of a "cleaner" > filesystem (by hiding files users usually don't see anyway one level > deeper in the tree structure) that more or less goes against the FHS, > that doesn't sound like a good deal to me. Ok, but at the end we have an exception in the tree (/var/lib/gentoo/news/) which is not justified (looking at the current discussion). My proposal has arisen after having seen the /var/lib/gentoo/news/ hierarchy. Regards, Fabio
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
El mié, 31-12-2008 a las 15:33 +0100, Fabio Rossi escribió: > On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote: > > > Well, the impact is about the same wether you want to change one or the > > other (btw, what about other admin tools on Gentoo, e.g. > > paludis/pkgcore, by your definition they'd also have to go > > into /var/lib/gentoo, right?) > > Yes. So you don't think that a /var/lib/ directory makes > sense for collecting all admin files *strictly* related to the distribution, > do you? > > If portage/paludis/pkgcore were used in other distributions I'd not consider > their files related to the admin purposes of one specific distrib, at that > point their files could be directly put inside /var/lib. They are used in other distributions. Paludis is the default package manager on Exherbo. Also, think about all Gentoo derivatives like Sabayon. Regards, -- Santiago Moisés Mola Jabber: cooldw...@gmail.com | GPG: AAD203B5 signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
[gentoo-dev] Re: reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
Jeremy Olexa posted 495b81ab.3040...@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:28:59 -0600: > Fabio Rossi wrote: >> On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Duncan wrote: >> >>> Except that... in theory, some or all of those apps could technically >>> be used on/for other distributions and platforms as well. >> >> Yes, this is the theory but I think they'll be never ported to other >> distributions. > > sabayon doesn't use these apps? How about gentoo based livecds, etc. ? I was thinking of sabayon but couldn't remember the name. All I could think of was exherbo... which AFAIK does use at least eselect (I've seen it mentioned) and I'd guess news also, given the person who was the big push behind the GLEP. ... But IMO the entire debate is a bunch of bikeshedding, which implies it's reasonably safe to assume the status quo is likely to remain. But of course that didn't stop me from offering my opinion, turquoise with aquamarine stripes! =;^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:00:35PM +0100, Fabio Rossi wrote: > On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote: > > > The same could be said about /var/lib/init.d, /var/lib/dhcp, > > /var/lib/iptables or several other packages that aren't hosted by > > Gentoo. In the other direction, if the packages are eventually used on > > other distributions/systems, should they then use another path? > > The path could be configured of course but, again, I see a few chances of > having this tools outside gentoo, the proposal is based also on this idea. > > > Mind that this only addresses the FHS part of my mail, you haven't > > really answered my question: What's the benefit of changing things? > > Change for the sake of change is rarely a good idea (unless you work in > > PR/marketing ;) > > The main benefit is a cleaner filesystem, I don't know your opinion but I > hate > to see sparse files around the tree and waste time in discovering their > source :-) Moreover IMHO it gives me the impression of a better design. I'm the first to admit I'm an organization/directory junkie, but have learned that 'cleaner' is certainly in the eye of the beholder. What I see as disorganized chaos a flat-filer sees as visibility heaven. This has nothing to do with good design (although you would and I used to argue that) and everything to do with personal taste. It could even be argued that the proposal is poor design, forcing Gentoo-specific programs to follow non-standards, discouraging them from ever integrating seamlessly with anything non-Gentoo. This is Gentoo's living room and it generally lives there alone. Don't force it into a small corner for no reason. --dc
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > Fabio Rossi wrote: > > On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Duncan wrote: > >> Except that... in theory, some or all of those apps could technically be > >> used on/for other distributions and platforms as well. > > > > Yes, this is the theory but I think they'll be never ported to other > > distributions. > > sabayon doesn't use these apps? How about gentoo based livecds, etc. ? Ok, you're right. But I wasn't speaking about gentoo-based distributions... Fabio
Re: [gentoo-dev] glep-42-news: sparc multilib profile
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Josh Saddler schrieb: > Mmm, not so much. Documentation like this, that's so specific to one > particular architecture, would be better off in project documentation -- > that's (partly) why ya'll have project directories in the first place. > Otherwise it becomes a maintenance burden for the GDP. It'll be easier > on the Sparc team to maintain it if it's in their own /proj/ space. > > What we can do, however, is list it in metadoc.xml, so that it will show > up in /doc/en/list.xml. > Right, x86 or ppc users won't benefit from reading it ;) I moved it to the sparc space and attached the revided news item. Regards, Friedrich -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAklbkUYACgkQknxn9PmJ76X6UgCeNDiKufUBOJ+L7sQPv4nvBBGM vIwAnRTVmxQOutloBVG7XIf/FJo5aG+E =qYuu -END PGP SIGNATURE- Title: Migrating to the new sparc mutlilib profile Author: Friedrich Oslage Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2008-12-30 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 Display-If-Profile: default/linux/sparc/experimental/multilib Display-If-Profile: default/linux/sparc/experimental/multilib/desktop Display-If-Profile: default/linux/sparc/experimental/multilib/developer Display-If-Profile: default/linux/sparc/experimental/multilib/server When migrating to the new sparc mutlilib profile please keep in mind that it is still in an experimental state. Also note that you need to follow the migration guide [0], otherwise important packages such as gcc or glibc will fail to compile and most other packages will be installed incorrectly. [0] http://sparc.gentoo.org/multilib.xml
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wednesday 31 of December 2008 15:33:14 Fabio Rossi wrote: > Ok, but at the end we have an exception in the tree (/var/lib/gentoo/news/) > which is not justified (looking at the current discussion). My proposal has > arisen after having seen the /var/lib/gentoo/news/ hierarchy. Then it seems way more appropriate and easier to implement to force Gentoo news to comply to FHS and shot on sight those responsible for this mess :D -- regards MM signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:53:27 +0100 Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > On Wednesday 31 of December 2008 15:33:14 Fabio Rossi wrote: > > Ok, but at the end we have an exception in the tree > > (/var/lib/gentoo/news/) which is not justified (looking at the > > current discussion). My proposal has arisen after having seen > > the /var/lib/gentoo/news/ hierarchy. > > Then it seems way more appropriate and easier to implement to force > Gentoo news to comply to FHS and shot on sight those responsible for > this mess :D Gentoo does not comply with the FHS. It was established a long time ago that FHS is considered silly and any compliance is merely because the FHS people somehow managed to avoid screwing that particular area up. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wednesday 31 of December 2008 16:57:12 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Gentoo does not comply with the FHS. It was established a long time ago > that FHS is considered silly and any compliance is merely because the > FHS people somehow managed to avoid screwing that particular area up. Well, we're not here to deliberate about people's taste in FHS silliness manner. FHS, being standard de-facto, following the definition of the word "standard" as something accepted by majority and thus promised to be respected. Not justified standard violations or justified by "I don't like it" or "It's silly" should be repressed and some good standards should be explicitly forced in my opinion. Otherwise, inconsistency will create the feel of mess. I believe we can agree on this. -- regards MM signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:21:45 +0100 Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > On Wednesday 31 of December 2008 16:57:12 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > Gentoo does not comply with the FHS. It was established a long time > > ago that FHS is considered silly and any compliance is merely > > because the FHS people somehow managed to avoid screwing that > > particular area up. > > Well, we're not here to deliberate about people's taste in FHS > silliness manner. FHS, being standard de-facto, following the > definition of the word "standard" as something accepted by majority > and thus promised to be respected. Not justified standard violations > or justified by "I don't like it" or "It's silly" should be repressed > and some good standards should be explicitly forced in my opinion. > Otherwise, inconsistency will create the feel of mess. I believe we > can agree on this. You could use the same argument to say "Gentoo must switch to RPM because LSB says so". -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
Duncan wrote: > ... But IMO the entire debate is a bunch of bikeshedding, which implies > it's reasonably safe to assume the status quo is likely to remain. I agree. The proposal does not seem to offer any real improvement that would be noticeable either by end users or Gentoo developers. Looks like it would be too much effort for so little gain. But in the end it is bikeshedding, and I don't really care. -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux developer (lxde, media, qt, desktop-misc) Gentoo Linux Release Engineering PR liaison __ yng...@gentoo.org http://ben.liveforge.org/ irc://chat.freenode.net/#gentoo-media irc://irc.oftc.net/#lxde __
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: reorganization of /var/lib gentoo-related files
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:15:54 +0100 Fabio Rossi wrote: > On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > > Fabio Rossi wrote: > > > On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Duncan wrote: > > >> Except that... in theory, some or all of those apps could > > >> technically be used on/for other distributions and platforms as > > >> well. > > > > > > Yes, this is the theory but I think they'll be never ported to > > > other distributions. > > > > sabayon doesn't use these apps? How about gentoo based livecds, > > etc. ? > > Ok, you're right. But I wasn't speaking about gentoo-based > distributions... Well, a few people have actually been using portage on rpm-based distros as well in the past. Granted that was usually quite a hack and required a few modifications, but it might not be as impossible as you think.
