We'd like to define vendor in separate macro. Current definition of prefix =  /opt/rh is not very nice.

We also would like to see adding another directory into /opt, so more vendors could install same collection, for example
/opt/vendor/user/ruby193
/opt/vendor/user2/ruby193

(In reply to Marcela Mašláňová from comment #3)
> We'd like to define vendor in separate macro. Current definition of prefix =
> /opt/rh is not very nice.

I still don't get what are you hoping to achieve with this. Right now to redefine the scl prefix, you just need to redefine one macro: %_scl_prefix. With this change, you will *still* need to redefine one macro, it will just be called differently: %_scl_vendor. Please specify what exactly are you hoping to achieve here that is not achievable already, otherwise I will close the bug again!

> We also would like to see adding another directory into /opt, so more
> vendors could install same collection, for example
> /opt/vendor/user/ruby193
> /opt/vendor/user2/ruby193

This is completely different request and not exactly a simple one, as it breaks a substantial amount of both backward and forward compatibility.

(In reply to Jan Zeleny from comment #4)
> (In reply to Marcela Mašláňová from comment #3)
> > We'd like to define vendor in separate macro. Current definition of prefix =
> > /opt/rh is not very nice.
> 
> I still don't get what are you hoping to achieve with this. Right now to
> redefine the scl prefix, you just need to redefine one macro: %_scl_prefix.
> With this change, you will *still* need to redefine one macro, it will just
> be called differently: %_scl_vendor. Please specify what exactly are you
> hoping to achieve here that is not achievable already, otherwise I will
> close the bug again!
> 

The thing is, that we don't want to redefine the "/opt" part everywhere, we just want to redefine the vendor. By having only %_scl_prefix, you effectively have to define the path and the vendor in one place together. E.g. you can't for example have buildroot that defines %scl_path macro and an SCL metapackage that defines it's own vendor, while not having to care what the path is.

> > We also would like to see adding another directory into /opt, so more
> > vendors could install same collection, for example
> > /opt/vendor/user/ruby193
> > /opt/vendor/user2/ruby193
> 
> This is completely different request and not exactly a simple one, as it
> breaks a substantial amount of both backward and forward compatibility.

I guess this would be better solved by just using user_ruby193 for collection name.

I thought that the reason was little different:

We want to allow user to build their own collection (likely in Copr and scl.org) and since two users can very likely choose the same name (eg. ruby193) we would need to difference by vendor. e.g:
 /opt/msuchy/ruby193
 /opt/jzeleny/ruby193

But if we want to take it seriously we have to register all path under /opt. And this is impossible. Therefore we need something like:

 /opt/scl.org/msuchy/ruby193
 /opt/scl.org/jzeleny/ruby193

Note: this is not goal of this BZ, but spliting the prefix into two parts seems to be required step on this path.

(In reply to Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jan Zeleny from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Marcela Mašláňová from comment #3)
> > > We'd like to define vendor in separate macro. Current definition of prefix =
> > > /opt/rh is not very nice.
> > 
> > I still don't get what are you hoping to achieve with this. Right now to
> > redefine the scl prefix, you just need to redefine one macro: %_scl_prefix.
> > With this change, you will *still* need to redefine one macro, it will just
> > be called differently: %_scl_vendor. Please specify what exactly are you
> > hoping to achieve here that is not achievable already, otherwise I will
> > close the bug again!
> > 
> 
> The thing is, that we don't want to redefine the "/opt" part everywhere, we
> just want to redefine the vendor. By having only %_scl_prefix, you
> effectively have to define the path and the vendor in one place together.
> E.g. you can't for example have buildroot that defines %scl_path macro and
> an SCL metapackage that defines it's own vendor, while not having to care
> what the path is.

The last time I was on call with FPC, I got the opposite impression, they want to be able to redefine both the /opt and vendor part. Anyway, I think I understand your use case better thanks to the example.

> > > We also would like to see adding another directory into /opt, so more
> > > vendors could install same collection, for example
> > > /opt/vendor/user/ruby193
> > > /opt/vendor/user2/ruby193
> > 
> > This is completely different request and not exactly a simple one, as it
> > breaks a substantial amount of both backward and forward compatibility.
> 
> I guess this would be better solved by just using user_ruby193 for
> collection name.

Agreed. Not exactly pretty but if we want to avoid rebasing scl-utils in all existing channels or risking scl crashes, I don't think we have a choice.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 985233 ***