Comment 30 for bug 1448092

> By the way, have you found why lintian complained PMLinux
> at /opt/ibm/pm/ ? (I sent you the tar balls on Sep 17 by email)

lintian assumes that the package is intended for inclusion in the distribution, so it expects it to comply with those parts of the FHS. Packages in the Ubuntu partner archive are allowed to ship in /opt instead (at their option), but lintian does not support analyzing such a package using the appropriate rules. The solution for this is to include lintian overrides in the package for the /opt path.

You are right that the FHS also expects writable files to be located in /etc/opt and /var/opt rather than in /opt. For applications that expect to find their files all in a self-contained directory tree, which is a common case for partner packages under /opt, the usual approach is to place the real files in /etc/opt or /var/opt and provide symlinks as necessary under /opt/<path>. It seems to me that this should meet your needs for PMLinux.cfg.

What is not acceptable is to ship files in new subdirectories under /var such as /var/perf, for precisely the same reason that you cite as problematic for placing user-writable files under /opt. The FHS is an interface contract with the admin that dictates what filesystem paths must be mounted read-write, what paths must be local vs. remote, what paths contain data that the admin will want to back up, and so forth. While the use of /opt is allowed for partner packages (but not for packages in the primary Ubuntu archive), the overall FHS policy regarding file placement must be conformed to.

Are there any technical blockers to placing the package's contents in /opt/ibm/pm, with symlinks to /etc/opt/ibm/pm and /var/opt/ibm/pm for the writable parts?