[Rpm-ecosystem] debugedit project setup

[Panu Matilainen]

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outdated info).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 -