From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outbound-relay9.guardedhost.com (outbound-relay9.guardedhost.com [216.239.133.221]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.5626.1607558442387353498 for ; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 16:00:43 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: snowmoose.com, ip: 216.239.133.221, mailfrom: alanp@snowmoose.com) Received: from mail.guardedhost.com (mx02.guardedhost.com [IPv6:2607:fe90:1:1::53:1]) by outbound-relay1.guardedhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CrvFP2WD9z4x77M; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:00:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from Alans-MacBook-Pro.local (c-73-254-147-133.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [73.254.147.133]) (Authenticated sender: alanp@snowmoose.com) by mail.guardedhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4CrvFN2B3zz30nk; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:00:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 1/2] iproute2: install tools to mirror install under Debian/Ubuntu To: Andre McCurdy Cc: Richard Purdie , OE Core mailing list References: <20201205082246.14954-1-alanp@snowmoose.com> <83ae3fae-37a5-e32d-5084-e1a20d97b13d@snowmoose.com> From: "Alan Perry" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:00:38 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: mail.guardedhost.com;auth=pass X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse-Id: BDE6AE42-3A7A-11EB-81E2-B3D96A92F8E6 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.2 at tev-mx2.omnis.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US On 12/9/20 3:40 PM, Andre McCurdy wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:39 PM Alan Perry 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 >>>> --- >>>> .../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.