FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-23-2009, 08:39 AM
Martin Pitt
 
Default apturl repository whitelist application process

Siegfried Gevatter (RainCT) [2009-02-13 16:38 +0100]:
> 2009/2/12 Alexander Sack <asac@ubuntu.com>:
> > * File system layout of the package should be to install to /opt -
> > unless there is a good reason for individual files to be shipped
> > elsewhere.
>
> What's the reason for this? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm
> unhappy with having packages messing with my /opt directory; afaik it
> has traditionally been a directory for the system owner to place there
> what he wants

No, actually not. /usr/local is the system admin/owner's playground.
IMHO /opt is meant for precisely the purpose that is proposed here,
third-party packages which must not conflict with the OS vendor's
packages.

http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#OPTADDONAPPLICATIONSOFTWAREPACKAGES

> and I don't understand why we want packages to do
> anything there now. Further, it may also confuse users who will look
> for files in their proper place, and it is inconsistent with all other
> packages (including PPAs, etc.) which install files directly into /.

I agree that it is confusing, but Unix has had not one, but three (or
even four) "proper places" so far (/ and /usr, /usr/local, /opt,
~/.local), for good reasons (different maintenance responsibilities),
and so far this did a pretty good job of not getting too much into
each other's way.

Using /opt is also the only sensible way for providing newer
versions/beta test versions of software which are co-installable with
the previous (stable) version. This is also one of the use cases Scott
Richie brought up.

Martin

--
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 
Old 03-24-2009, 06:37 PM
Michael Vogt
 
Default apturl repository whitelist application process

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:24:49AM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> One of the topics on the jaunty agenda was to come up with a process
> document that defines how third party repositories can apply for
> apturl whitelisting and how we can ensure that such repositories are
> of high maintenance quality. Based on various discussions we drafted an
> initial policy-like draft, which you can find below. Please comment.
[..]

After the initial RFC we updated the guidelines document to incoperate
the feedback that we received. The diff is available:
http://tinyurl.com/d42mfu

The full text is available here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ThirdPartyRepositoryApplicationProcess

The key points we adressed are:
* allow a exception for packages are maintained for lts releases only
(they need to add a special tag)
* make the scope for packages that are considered for third party
applications a bit broader
* for the case where running a launchpad project is not feasible, we
added an option to use "ubuntu-third-party-bugs" as the fallback
* change the wording to reflect that its more a guideline than a
strict policy

Cheers,
Alexander Sack and Michael Vogt

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:46 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org