Re: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.0
On Nov 01, Scott Ellis wrote
> On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Michel LESPINASSE wrote:
> > the FHS 2.0, published yesterday, is meant to obsolete the FSSTDN 1.2,
> > that was used until then.
> > The FHS homepage is at http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
> > Some important additions of the new standard includes /usr/share for all
> > architecture-independant data (like /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/man, etc),
> > /var/cache, /var/state .....
> > Is there a plan to upgrade debian's packages so that they are compliant to
> > this new standard ? Will the final hamm release be FHS 2.0 compliant ?
> We had some discussion about this on debian-policy right after FHS was
> released. The basic consensus was that attempting to be FHS complient for
> hamm would delay the release unacceptably, since basically all packages
> are affected. I believe we'll be revisiting FHS compliance after hamm is
> out the door.
I think it would be nice (for maintainers) if we could start to move to FHS2
- for instance moving documentation to /usr/share/doc at the same time as
updating packages to libc6.
I don't know FHS2 at all and there maybe little point in doing this now for
packages like exim (which would have to be changed later to use /var/mail).
There is also the drawback that some packages would be using /usr/doc and
some would use /usr/share/doc. Does anyone have a good idea of whether using
FHS2 now is going to save time or just cause hassle for all concerned?
email: firstname.lastname@example.org | Debian Linux - www.debian.org
http://www.poboxes.com/adrian.bridgett | Because bloated, unstable
PGP key available on public key servers | operating systems are from MS
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .