 |
 |
Hi Sam, Thanks for the clarification, in that case I'm worrying about an issue which doesn't exist. If packages don't conflict with the distribution I don't see a compelling reason why they shouldn't go under /usr. Best regards, Stuart On 29/04/13 21:21, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Stuart" == Stuart Rankin <[log in to unmask]> writes: > > Stuart> Hi Sam, > >> Hi. I'd like to better understand this concern. > >> > >> How will keeping things in separate directories make dependency > >> resolution easier? > > Stuart> Because then they could belong to new packages which would > Stuart> not need to carry the dependencies of the original > Stuart> distribution packages they replaced. If alternatively you > Stuart> were replacing distribution packages, e.g. if package P is > Stuart> replaced by P.moonshot, you might one day get the following > Stuart> situation: > > Thanks, this was a very useful explanation. > I think we may be miscommunicating somewhat. > > The only cases where we plan to replace distribution components are > cases where we'll leave our packages in /opt/moonshot. > That is, the openssh case. > > libevent is another case where we'll either rename our packages and be > using a different soname and/or use a static build. > > The stuff we're talking about putting in /usr is exactly stuff that > isn't in the distributions today. And if it gets there, please use > their packages not ours, or build from source. > > In particular we're talking about: > > * Shibboleth > * libradsec > * Moonshot UI > * Moonshot GSS mechanism > * jansson > * trust_router > > --Sam > -- Dr. Stuart Rankin Senior System Administrator High Performance Computing Service University of Cambridge Email: [log in to unmask] Tel: (+)44 1223 763517