Re: /usr/dict/ -> /usr/share/dict/ request (bug #110632)
Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:
> On 1 Sep 2001, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> I still see nothing prohibiting a few symlinks in the aid of
>> backwards compatibility. You are continuing to post your personal
>> opinion, rather than anything based on the text of the standard.
>
> FHS 2.1, section 4: The /usr Hierarchy
>
> [...]
>
> No large software packages should use a direct subdirectory under
> the /usr hierarchy. An exception is made for the X Window System
> because of considerable precedent and widely-accepted practice.
Given that /usr/dict/words was widely-accepted practice until quite
recently, it seems strange for an implementor to refuse an exception
there when the same reasoning supports an exception for X.
[...]
> It's implicit in the language that anything else is prohibited by
> the FHS.
Then let us remove /floppy, /cdrom, /lost+found and /proc, which you
will observe are not listed in the section 3.2 on the root directory.
Fortunately, this implicit prohibition on additions does not exist: in
fact it is explicit that additions are not prohibited. Section 1.1
says "We do this by [...] Specifying the minimum files and directories
required", and not "the maximum files and directories required" or
"the exact set of files and directories required".
(There is an exception: 4.9.2 limits what directories may be in
/usr/local on first installation. But no such limit is stated for
/usr.)
> Of course, since /usr/doc is not listed even among the backwards
> compatibility directories, Debian is not strictly compliant with
> this understanding of the FHS. But that doesn't mean we should make
> things worse by providing additional symlinks for software that
> should be updated to use the new directory structure. Let the site
> admin take responsibility for such software, not us.
I take the view that Debian should aim to be backward-compatible.
Historically it has been good at this: e.g. the continued functioning
of a.out binaries after the switch to ELF (and similarly the
libc5/libc6 transition).
I hope that it continues.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
(I read the list. Please don't CC me. TIA.)
Reply to: