On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 08:38:30AM +0300, Jukka Neppius wrote: > Ethan Benson <erbenson@alaska.net> writes: > > > On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 01:09:20PM +0300, Jukka Neppius wrote: > > > > > > I understand old Unix idea was that '/' has files needed to bring > > > system up to single user state, mount /usr and restore backups. > > > > > > So for example /etc/X11 would not belong to /etc. Most modules would > > > go into /usr/lib not into /lib. I think it is good to have all > > > configuration files in one place. Perhaps /usr/config ? > > > > no. > > > > please read the FHS, http://www.pathname.com/fhs > > After quick read it seems to me that moving /etc/X11 to /var/config/ > and linking it to /etc would not would not be against FHS. read it again, FHS last i checked said nothing about /var/config, randomly adding crap under /var is not permitted. /var/lib/X11 would be allowed but configuration files are not supposed to go there. system wide configuration files go in /etc. deal with it. now if we talk about things that are in /etc/ but are not configuration files then they should be moved to either /usr/share if they are static, or /var/lib/ perhaps if they are variable by still not really config files. > '/' should only have files needed to bring system up to single user > state, mount /usr and restore backups. and hold system wide configuration files, thats what the FHS says so take it up with them. i mostly agree with you, but i don't see a problem with /etc as it is currently defined. having /etc directories all over the place is not appealing to me. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpCR4SWI2Ixi.pgp
Description: PGP signature