Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (826 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] RFC: Proposed relocation of /var/lib/rpm
  • From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 07:44:16 +0200
  • Message-id: <1834590.1XMElLWiyu@alaris>
On Thursday, 5 October 2017 7:37 Dave Plater wrote:
On 05/10/2017 07:18, Michal Kubecek wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 17:19 Dave Plater wrote:
You need to start a new thread for the last and most important part
of your message.
My personal opinion is /usr/lib/rpm /usr/share is overpopulated

That's really weak argument, I must say.

As I'm not one of those who believe that all old standards are dead
and> is the word of God, let's check what FHS says:
/usr/share: Architecture-independent data

So the question we should ask is: is the format of RPM database
architecture independent? If it is, /usr/share is fine, if not, I
would adwise strongly against it and prefer /usr/lib.

Michal Kubeček

I think that the architecture argument doesn't work for /usr/lib, one
example is %python_sitelib - site-packages directory for
platform-independent modules. Expands to
Not to mention the fact that /usr/lib/rpm contains most of rpm's
architecture independent files. It also contains the only text
reference to /var/lib/rpm in rpmdb_loadcvt.

It does work in the opposite direction, though: if the files are
architecture dependent, they do not belong under /usr/share

Michal Kubeček
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups