From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id CA330E00BCC; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 14:50:42 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [209.85.221.67 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com (mail-wr1-f67.google.com [209.85.221.67]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C54E0097C for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 14:50:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id n2so11258912wrw.8 for ; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 14:50:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=google; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6weJ12GNo6Xkx6udQSaWTswDC3OlGp0lo0Fe7IKB0BI=; b=Of56Z1ShRMYAU7zITOSfaqZkeTGkIts+rGa4fm2ofTIXJrWgfdlru+IxuQP8/2742b F5RIXCB9deHWZSWessAHnzHFKGBLzEYh0n4VKEHrP3LxfWMQWm1rSa5OYif1kayfmIg4 D8MnkGMR1yS7VnUjBtAdpcNPr7nnD/PDYEDGs= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6weJ12GNo6Xkx6udQSaWTswDC3OlGp0lo0Fe7IKB0BI=; b=qrq3AwdvGCmGYHX5sW898NQupAZHR1D3jZ/TxT3ZGPjQ5gzTj7+iW+vf3t3cc+b0BS fjBFKTgJ62UNzrUsBzu2WFFu0f1Za8BFoTaO1Pf4GX4FIUbiIxT0RWtZUFEv1sDVmWld /HTRAmXTMgSHAZaCQIw2jkIqC0ZuMLmBQ690G7iT+ABsgeSColNy5I7FN4RB7NOQE0QB ppynPJVmI2GTl8pkv5q25n3FgpSVhVSva5vSxTl2AgFoXMlzk29K/ijVr/BwET/dQ2gL r7E/cYF2vg1mViubN50TtJVg1PTEwMK3ZksGNM7w3u7gS/UMgx3z5C/XYjLyRVnzIreu 14GQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXfFeKI/NHEqYjsuituZv5rbZLGStFltvT4ejvumhsiz4B8bKhf jDf8ip83fG9UkUBRoTJj+TbvbA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy2VSfz9LTZ0OfGlFG+KSS0vgRva35Q56NCFFS69ty0s9xcCsrX7QkDlGxuj6CGST4o16MxBA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:9f54:: with SMTP id f20mr789251wrg.88.1551826241340; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 14:50:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from hex (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com. [87.81.244.161]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 132sm140008wmd.27.2019.03.05.14.50.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 05 Mar 2019 14:50:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <905307c29324d701044d2d1b2fd0952edd3fbc36.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: Alejandro Del Castillo , "opkg-devel@googlegroups.com" , ChenQi , "yocto@yoctoproject.org" Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 22:50:38 +0000 In-Reply-To: <90ababe5-0ec7-ccb6-9308-19660f573930@ni.com> References: <6323ed1d-0e39-4d07-e691-5e3e07f007f9@windriver.com> <90ababe5-0ec7-ccb6-9308-19660f573930@ni.com> User-Agent: Evolution 3.31.90-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [opkg-devel] [opkg-utils] Question: why update-alternatives from opkg-utils chooses /usr/lib to hold database? X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 22:50:42 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 16:05 +0000, Alejandro Del Castillo wrote: > > On 3/5/19 12:11 AM, ChenQi wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Recently I'm dealing with issue from which some discussion raises. > > I'd like to ask why update-alternatives from opkg-utils chooses > > /usr/lib > > to hold its alternatives database? > > I looked into debian, its update-alternatives chooses /var/lib by > > default. > > Is there some design consideration? Or some historical reason? > > Update-alternatives used to be on the opkg repo. I did a search > there > all the way to the first commit on 2008-12-15 [1], but even then > /usr/lib was used. I can't think of a design consideration that > would > make /usr/lib more palatable than the Debian default. > > Maybe someone with more knowledge of the previous history can chime > in? > > [1] > http://git.yoctoproject.org/clean/cgit.cgi/opkg/commit/?id=8bf49d16a637cca0cd116450dfcabc4c941baf6c I think the history is that the whole of /var was considered volatile and we wanted the alternatives data to stick around so it was put under /usr. That decision doesn't really make sense now since only parts of /var are volatile.. Cheers, Richard