Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 1/2] iproute2: install tools to mirror install under Debian/Ubuntu

["Alan Perry" <alanp@snowmoose.com>]

On 12/9/20 3:40 PM, Andre McCurdy wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:39 PM Alan Perry <alanp@snowmoose.com> wrote:
>> On 12/7/20 1:49 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2020-12-05 at 08:22 +0000, Alan Perry wrote:
>>>> Many scripts exist that expect the iproute2 tools to be found in
>>>> the same directories where they are found in Debian or Ubuntu.
>>>> For the iproute2 tools included in the iproute2 recipe, move
>>>> them to those directories or create links there.. Also, add
>>>> bash-completion files as is done by Debian and Ubuntu.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alan Perry <alanp@snowmoose.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    .../iproute2/iproute2.inc                     | 23 +++++++++++++++++--
>>>>    1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>> The direction in the patch is worrying me a little.
>>>
>>> There is a bash-completion class which splits completion files into
>>> their own package, most "embedded" users don't want them in the main
>>> packages. This patch does something different to what has been done
>>> elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Secondly, I'm also not sure that just because debian does something we
>>> should therefore do it, I'm not convinced that scripts should be
>>> hardcoding path assumptions about these tools. IF this is such a
>>> universal need, why doesn't upstream change the default installation
>>> locations? Has it been discussed?
>>>
>>> I'd expect there to be opinions on this topic but I'm not seeing much
>>> discussion. I suspect if if does merge there would be push back later
>>> though.
>>>
>>> Also, the duplication between bin and sbin for ip is not particularly
>>> good practise.
>>>
>> Thanks for your comments. I apologize for the delay in responding, but I
>> needed to do some research first.
>>
>> I will look at the bash-completion class and make the appropriate
>> changes there.
>>
>> As far as the installation path changes, I discussed why those aren't
>> the defaults with the iproute2 upstream maintainer. The idea is that the
>> upstream puts everything in /sbin and where is appropriate to install
>> them for a given distro is left as an exercise for that distro.
>>
>> The iproute2 recipe is doing that exercise for poky. So, where is the
>> correct place to install these tools on poky? I'd argue that they should
>> go in the expected directories for Unix-y OSes. Someone at Debian went
>> through that analysis and put them where they put them and those mostly
>> seem like reasonable places to me. It is also where users coming to
>> poky-based systems will likely expecting to find them.
>>
>> As far as duplicating ip in bin and sbin, I agree that it isn't good
>> practice. Having it in both doesn't seem necessary to me.
> But isn't that duplication all part of aligning with Debian (where
> /sbin/ip is a symlink to /bin/ip)? Presumably something relies on the
> symlink or Debian wouldn't be doing it.

I was just saying that I could see an argument for leaving that one out. 
As noted here, doing so isn't without risk.

>
> Based on:
>
>    https://sources.debian.org/src/iproute2/5.9.0-1/debian/iproute2.install/
>    https://sources.debian.org/src/iproute2/5.9.0-1/debian/iproute2.links/
>
> Debian does seem to do quite a lot or rearranging of the installed
> files. Open question seems to be whether that rearranging is to align
> with requirements which are specific to Debian or something which
> other distros might need too?
>
> Based on:
>
>    https://centos.pkgs.org/8/centos-baseos-x86_64/iproute-5.3.0-5.el8.x86_64.rpm.html
>
> It looks like Centos installs all binaries under /usr/sbin

I don't know that I would characterize rearranging the installed files 
as Debian does is "specific to Debian" or moving them as appropriate to 
how /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, and /usr/sbin have been traditionally 
distinguished from each other. Where Centos is described to install them 
doesn't match that traditional use.