Re: ifupdown writes to /etc... a bug?
Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > Also /etc/run do not clutter the / which was a concern outside FHS
> > compliance.
I only expressed a concern raised by someone on this list. It is not
a personnal opinion.
The purpose is to find a compromise that allow us to move on and do
something instead of discussing it to death. This suppose trying to see
if we can address concerns of other people instead of just declaring
> The filesystem is a hierarchy, we should consider the elegance of the
> entire tree rather than just trying to make one directory look good.
> That is the entire point of the FHS.
I see no evidence of this in the FHS. Does'nt it mandate /usr/local as a
subdirectory of /usr, /lib/modules as a subdirectory of /lib, /var/mail as a
subdirectory of /var ? /etc as the name for a config files directory? I rather
see the FHS as a compromise between good practice and historical behaviour.
/etc/run is just that.
> If you just want to reduce the directory count in / then why dont you
> try and get rid of /opt, it doesnt even have files in it on my machine
> (and i assume a majority of others).
I don't give a damn about the link count on /.
> Dont pick on /run, its a very good idea, pick on something else.
I have no business picking on any directory.