[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#190003: FHS problem

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 08:48:53PM +0000, debian@computerdatasafe.com.au wrote:
> Package: install-doc
> Version: current
> Severity: Serious

This shouldn't be RC as far as I can tell.

> "Hereafter, we'll assume your kernel source will be located in
> /usr/local/src and that your kernel version is 2.2.22. As root, create a
> directory under /usr/local/src and change the owner of that directory to
> your normal non-root account. As your normal non-root account, change
> your directory to where you want to unpack the kernel sources (cd
> /usr/local/src), extract the kernel sources (tar xIf
> /usr/src/kernel-source-2.2.22.tar.bz2), change your directory to it (cd
> kernel-source-2.2.22/)."
> In contrast, the FHS at http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-4.1.html
> says, "/usr is the second major section of the filesystem. /usr is
> shareable, read-only data. That means that /usr should be shareable
> between various FHS-compliant hosts and must not be written to. Any
> information that is host-specific or varies with time is stored
> elsewhere."

"Must not be written to" by programs under normal operation, but there's
nothing wrong with it being written to when performing administrative
operations: admins aren't bound by the FHS. Also, /usr/local follows
somewhat different rules from /usr in general.

(Does dpkg now violate the FHS because it writes to /usr?)

> A better location for building kernels and debian packages is somewhere
> in the $HOME structure. Advising users to build software in a filesystem
> that may be mounted read-only and which 'must not bw written to" is
> wrong.

I would agree that somewhere in $HOME would be a better recommendation,
but only because it encourages people to build kernels as non-root. I
think invoking the FHS here is a red herring.


Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: