From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953AD3858004 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 08:31:19 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 953AD3858004 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pmatilai@redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1617006679; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vRsJv7Jtt1Yu5OLVSETSxu/cee/I8VAQBDCWTEoGyBg=; b=KJwRfxdgS9Up9EByHkTpeT2XJcIhG1VUbtOqycsNsUWW1L9CYuHLGRVCsEFBqC57mIKelJ 4Ku0IAoE5IoRtzRhYYVDs3d/A6fSnOd8ar83Yqn6VeDfemcdtN7bWMJrPiTxuDTJx2U0bz 3MMj1UTlF4Hru4niRZux4dedKChSw2U= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-410-i23BR9P2OHqNh4K4kRbXpQ-1; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 04:31:17 -0400 X-MC-Unique: i23BR9P2OHqNh4K4kRbXpQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41F2719251A1 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 08:31:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.112.201] (ovpn-112-201.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.201]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE699BA63 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 08:31:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [Rpm-ecosystem] debugedit project setup To: debugedit@sourceware.org References: <7bdd564bae323bf300ddeba40cba5313e3eaa22d.camel@klomp.org> <5c1d49ba-5a01-e6b2-dbc7-3cd64d552688@redhat.com> <20210325211338.GI2685@wildebeest.org> From: Panu Matilainen Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 11:31:14 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210325211338.GI2685@wildebeest.org> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=pmatilai@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: debugedit@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: debugedit development mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 08:31:21 -0000 On 3/25/21 11:13 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Panu, > > I added debugedit@sourceware.org to the CC. > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 03:52:53PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: >> On 3/23/21 2:29 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote: >>> On 3/22/21 7:42 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: >>>> There is a test debugedit-0.1 release to see whether this works. But I >>>> would like to make sure first that things are setup so that flatpak and >>>> rpm can use this as is before people start packaging it. Once we know >>>> it can be used as replacement for the built-in rpm/flatpak debugedit we >>>> do a proper debugedit 1.0 release. >>> >>> Awesome. I'll make it a priority to see that we transition, if at all >>> possible, to the external debugedit in rpm 4.17 already. Stay tuned... >> >> FWIW, here's a quick-n-dirty package of debugedit 0.1: >> >> https://laiskiainen.org/rpm/debugedit/ > > Nice, thanks. Would it make sense to add the debugedit.spec to the > debugedit sources themselves so people can easily create an rpm? > > Does it actually make sense to install everything under bindir? > Originally in rpm the tools were installed under /usr/lib/rpm/ because > they were only invoked indirectly through rpm. If we see them as tools > that no user/admin/developer will ever invoke directly maybe they > should be installed under /usr/libexec/ instead? These certainly look like they don't quite belong to /usr/bin, and in the rpm context they certainly don't. But I don't know what others do with these tools, so I just left it up to upstream in the package. /usr/libexec is controversial as it doesn't exist in FHS at all, and last I looked the Debian family doesn't use it (but this could be outdated info). The FHS-compatible place would be /usr/lib/debugedit/ I suppose. Me and rpm, we don't really care one way or the other. - Panu - - Panu -