From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-3346-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB0A6138F88 for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:58:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C09CDE0AAF; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:58:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28F62E0AAD for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:58:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.190.2.204] (85-76-174-73-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.174.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1F3D33FBC0 for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:58:52 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5310B196.5030709@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:56:06 +0200 From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-03-11 References: <530F38CB.4090608@gentoo.org> <53106FE4.9080804@gentoo.org> <5310AC88.2060405@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <5310AC88.2060405@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 3125efcd-78dc-4e18-bc67-5cd15873e1a8 X-Archives-Hash: 6d36c4eb6548b0ad097390bdafef5a1c On 28/02/14 17:34, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 02/28/2014 06:15 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On 02/27/2014 09:08 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I'm putting the call out there for any agenda items for the next >>> Council >>> meeting, which will be held on March 11, 2014 at 1900 UTC. This is >>> short notice but we got off track because of FOSDEM and we're going to >>> try to get back on track. >>> >>> So far, the only item is final ratification of glep 63 [1]. >> Since it's still a bit cold I'd like to start a nice fire to warm us up: >> >> I'd like QA and Council to figure out how much we care about FHS. >> >> My main complaint is some projects (including e.g. systemd and >> apparently now also udev) storing config files in /lib and/or /usr/lib. >> >> From FHS' point of view this is totally wrong, config files go to /etc >> Only libraries should be in /lib. >> Moving things to /usr/lib adds the extra fun that /usr needs to be >> mounted to acces *config files*. This is bad for our collective blood >> pressure. >> >> So I'd like to see config files stored in /etc again. Where they can be >> properly tracked and versioned ... >> >> (iow, storing config files in any other location than /etc is wrong; >> storing example configs in e.g. /usr/share is fine too; storing config >> in any other place is a valid bug that needs to be fixed) >> >> For upstreams that insist on splitting configs in "system default" and >> "local override" (which is rather nonsensical, but let them have some >> fun) I would suggest a subfolder of /etc, maybe /etc/defaults or >> /etc/systemdefaults or maybe /etc/lib/etc/usr/static if that's what >> makes people happy >> >> >> Enjoy the exothermic oxidation, >> >> Patrick >> >> > Speaking as a council member and the next chair: Patrick, how would > you pose this as a motion? As stated, the council should "discuss > FHS" but how would you word this as a policy that we can rule on? I > have an idea but would like to hear what you want. > > Speaking as a gentoo dev: This is one of my objections with systemd > and the whole / + /usr merge. It violates a standard which is assumed > in many setups, namely FHS. Another is that systemd violates the "one > thing well" principle. > That isn't true; systemd has dozens of sep. executables and each of them do one'ish task, and do it well. The one running in PID 1 has very little to do with them. So by your definition, it completely follows the "one thing well" principle. Futher, 'assumed in many setups', / + /usr, from which hat you pulled that rabbit out of? Merging the directories would propably bring in better compability, as it wouldnt matter anymore if something is hardcoding /bin/foo or /usr/bin/foo or even /usr/sbin/foo. I'd like the council to stick to facts when discussing the topic, please. And remember, I'm not anykind of pro-systemd advocate, AT ALL. And sorry for jumping in on the thread, but I couldn't help it, when people spread these things.