Le 2015-09-23 19:18, Guo, Liang Chang a écrit : > Thank you Mathieu. > Q: "Would it be possible to recompile just to replace /var/perf/pm with > /opt/ibm/pm? " > A: Although technically possible, it might raise questions on the viability > of PM-Ubuntu project: > 1) For a FHS-compliant system, it is supposed to store "static" things > only in /opt which may then be mounted for read only; If this is truly an issue for you, storing files in the proper paths in /usr/lib, and keeping just the very few binaries that are expected to ever be run by users in /usr/bin, is quite acceptable: we've already established that. The only thing that is being objected to is the use of paths in /var/perf; which isn't FHS-compliant.
As I've expressed before, it is a requirement for packages in the archive to follow Debian and Ubuntu packaging policies. > 2) There will be awful consequences to move home for PM (for IBM i, AIX, Linux, KVM ...) after we released the product more than a decade. Why? There is no consequence in keeping software in the generally accepted locations that are both time-tested and widely adopted. > Q: "This way we could have a PMLinux.cfg in a reasonable location and use it > to guide binaries ..." > A: Impossible. Program always runs first before configuration takes effect. > It's the location of binaries that matters and guides where to find the > configuration file, then knows where to store data and where to locate other > things (such as sub-programs, text documents, temporary locks/buffers etc.). On the contrary, this is why I am asking whether you can recompile these binaries. To know where to find their files, these programs must have it hard-coded somewhere. This means this value can be changed. > > Q: "or have the binaries 'just work' without any config file present?" > A: Yes, PM can works well with .cfg file absent. In this circumstance, PM > must run in default patterns. However, if config file does not exist, there > is no way to control PM behaves differently (off the defaults), particularly, > under the specific directories layout on Ubuntu. > > Here I update the proposal (version 1.1, right sheet in the attachment) > for your review for PM-Ubuntu with the files of static in /opt/ibm/pm > and of dynamic in /var/opt/ibm/pm, except the manual's (static) still in > the traditional place /usr/share/man. I thought I had mentioned it in the previous comment, but maybe I forgot: there's an additional issue with keeping manual pages in /usr/share/man if the rest is shipped in /opt. Packages shipping things in /opt should ship *everything* in /opt, not pick and choose. While I agree I've given you both options, it seems as though with all the coming data, it is likely best to ship ibmpmlinux files in proper /usr tree instead, such as in the initial packaging I provided for review in the bug (which was still affected by the binaries' requirement for arbitrary paths). -- Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre <mathieu...@gmail.com> Freenode: cyphermox, Jabber: mathieu...@gmail.com 4096R/DC95CA5A 36E2 CF22 B077 FEFE 725C 80D3 C7DA A946 DC95 CA5A -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1448092 Title: [needs-packaging] ibmpmlinux To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1448092/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
