Comment 32 for bug 1448092

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 08:58:45PM -0000, Guo, Liang Chang wrote:
> Thank you very much, Steve.

> > ... but lintian does not support analyzing such a package using the
> appropriate rules.

> Then, Ubuntu community should not reject a package destined for /opt,
> based on lintian's analysis output until that tool is fixed to comply
> with all FHS specifications.

We have not done so. The previous revision of the package has been rejected
*because it does not comply with the FHS*, not because lintian generates
warnings about it. The lintian output is a guide, not decisive.

> > 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?

> Yes, but only Ubuntu system (iso) is the blocker. Administrator (root)
> can NOT run (& man) commands in /opt/(s)bin (& /opt/man) without the
> path because /opt/(s)bin are not included in $PATH by default when they
> exist. This is another Ubuntu bug (in user profile initialization) for
> unconditional enforcement of the FHS standard while the system is
> actually not ready for.

Sorry, but I really don't know what you're looking for. The previous
version of the package submitted for review shipped all files in the
/var/perf/pm directory, which means the admin would have to manually add
/var/perf/pm/bin to their path to use ibmpmlinux; but that didn't appear to
be a blocker for you at that time. Why should it be a blocker now that we
are asking for ibmpmlinux to be installed to /opt instead?

I acknowledge without reservation that the Ubuntu support for /opt is
suboptimal. But there is no work scheduled to address this; so treating
/opt/bin path integration as a blocker for ibmpmlinux is merely going to
cause delays in being able to include ibmpmlinux in the partner archive.
Isn't it preferrable to have this software in the partner archive, with or
without /opt/bin path integration, than to not have it in the archive?