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

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: adrian.bridgett@poboxes.com       | 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
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: