Re: FHS 2.3 and /srv & /media
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote:
> > FHS 2.3 is about to be released RSN but there's some controversy over
> > /srv and /media. It would be good if Debian had an opinion about
> > this, so please look at the proposals and comment on them here.
> >
> > Addition of /srv:
> > http://bugs.freestandards.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16
> >
> > Addition of /media:
> > http://bugs.freestandards.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27
> Seems to be inaccesible. Is there a mirror somewhere?
For the bugs, no. But FHS 2.3 beta is available here:
http://www.samba.org/~cyeoh/
The diff 2.2 to 2.3 beta _1_ is here:
http://www.samba.org/~cyeoh/fhs_2.3_changes.txt
The 2.3 beta _3_ announcement is here:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3402935&forum_id=3128
and includes some objections from RedHat and a favourable comment by
SUSE and Connectiva.
Tobias
PS: I never had problems accessing http://bugs.freestandards.org/, it
worked this morning and it is now working.
PPS: Regarding to FHS 2.3 minus /srv and /media: I'm in favour of this
/media: Bad name maybe, but no-one has come up with a better name
definitively better than /mnt/cdrom etc.
I'm personally not sure whether I like /cdrom, /floppy etc.
or /media/{cdrom,floppy} more.
/srv: For real servers this is a better place than (a) /home or
/var/lib and (b) /etc, /var, /usr, etc. scattering.
The FHS is vague enough to allow distributions to
put such data at /srv or at {/etc,/usr,/var}. Therefore I
like this proposal.
The question is whether Debian should use /srv or only
create the directory.
In total: Thumb up for FHS 2.3
Reply to: