[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Comparing FHS 2.3 and 2.1

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:02:02PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>  5)==
> User specific configuration files for applications are stored in the user's
> home directory in a file that starts with the '.' character (a "dot file"). If
> an application needs to create more than one dot file then they should be
> placed in a subdirectory with a name starting with a '.' character, (a "dot
> directory"). In this case the configuration files should not start with the '.'
> character. 
> 	I have no idea if we comply, but this is a new requirement.

I think we do. This is common sense anyway, most applications I've seen
do it that way.

>  6)== 
>  Allows stuff like /lib64 or the like. /media is added as mount
>  points -- stuff that used to go under /mnt, which is still
>  retained. There a re a number of required subdirectories under
>  /media, which we don't have. Also, /srv should exist.
> 	********************************NOT COMPLIANT*************

Actually, we are (for new installations; not for upgrades from older
installations). For the /media part, anyway; not sure about /srv.

> 7)== 
>      /usr/local/etc may be a link to /etc/local,
>      /var/lib/hwclock/adjtime has been moved here from /etc
> 	So, we have a few minor things to tweak (/media, /srv, and the
>  XF86Config stuff, and then we should be OK to move to FHS 2.3 in
>  Etch.

I happen to think the XF86Config stuff is braindead. It's full of a
number of assumptions that happen to be correct at the time of writing,
but that may no longer be correct at some point in the future (to name
just one, the idea that XFree86 will be the X server of choice for all
unices trying to comply with FHS).

     smog  |   bricks
 AIR  --  mud  -- FIRE
soda water |   tequila
 -- with thanks to fortune

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: