Re: [RFC] User Accesable Filesystem Hierarchy Standard
After the previous suggestions on this topic, I have revised the proposed
standard somewhat. It is still posted in a variety of formats at:
I added the suggestion of using .<distribution>/<architecture>/ for a
directory structure, rather than my first change to simply putting it into a
hidden umbrella directory of a standard name. However, I still have several
questions regarding this which I could not find an immediate answer to:
Should there be a standard naming scheme for architectures, or should that
be left completely to the devices of the distribution? I'm tending towards
leaving it to the distribution, but would like some comments.
What about architecture independent systems, like Java? Should each distro
include a 'java' architecture, or something of that sort? There is no
particular reason for such files to be in every architecture's folder when
they work fairly widely.
I also liked the idea of having group directories similar to the shared
directory. In a larger work environment, such directories could solve many
difficult problems. The standard doesn't say much about them, however,
besides that they can be named arbitrarily and should have an internal
structure identical to /home/shared/ and should be located somewhere in
/home/. I don't see what else is needed to be defined on that topic, but
would like any suggestions.
I see no reason to unhide the program folders. They are still perfectly
accessible when they need to be accessed, but they can at least be kept out
of sight. This is even more important when using a naming scheme based on
the distribution which could result in very many folders.
Due to the fact that I merely added to and edited the old document, rather
than going through and actually rewriting it, or at least checking it, the
wording is clunky on several occasions. I'm not too concerned, as this is
still a draft, and will work more on clarity when the ideas to be conveyed
are better decided.
As always, thank you for your commentary and criticism.
P.S. In case anyone was wondering why this was sent to the lists it was:
those are the groups which have easily accessible public lists and to which
this proposed standard seemed relevant.
P.P.S. Many people have contributed ideas in discussions but aren't added to
the contributors section. Luckily, everything is in a public archive so I
can go back and see who suggested what, but it would be easier if anyone who
wanted to be credited would just e-mail me about it.
Persistent heartburn? Check out Digestive Health & Wellness for information
and advice. http://gerd.msn.com/default.asp