On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:25:19 -0400 sean finney <seanius@seanius.net> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:51:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > Achieving FHS compliance by upgrading could be sometimes very > > > tricky. Please perform FHS compliance tests on newly installed > > > systems only. > > > > Umm. How would creation of these new directories impact my > > system? I agree that my fstab ought not to be mucked with, but > > creating three dirs if they do not already exists ought to hurt > > nothing? > > i think the issue was more of annoyance than impact... if a local > admin removes said dirs, he/she'd probably like them to stay gone. But in already running systems they were never created in the first place. Take /srv for example; in time services like apache will start using /srv by default anyway, so it wouldn't hurt to get a head start. Web content doesn't really belong on /var for example, it's meant for variable data and web content isn't really that. Like FHS states: "/var contains variable data files. This includes spool directories and files, administrative and logging data, and transient and temporary files". > > > If you use the latest base-files to install a new system, you will > > > get /srv, /media, etc. > > > > And are we abandoning the machines already running Debian? Why > > do they not get FHS compliant, since third party software which one > > might install may soon rely on the new directories? > > i think i agree with the arguments against automatically creating them > in upgrades, but isn't this the type of one-time-question that debconf > would be good for? that is, in the maintainer scripts, if the version > change is from pre-fhs to post-fhs, ask the user "upgrade to latest > fhs spec?" this way, i think everybody would get what they wanted. That would be great indeed. Greets, Timothy
Attachment:
pgpjIHE55qQ9K.pgp
Description: PGP signature