FHS clarification
Hi folks!
A lot of topics that are currently discussed on this list are related to
the FHS. I think it's time to discuss the current role of the FHS to
Debian _before_ we start discussing individual aspects.
The FHS has (AFAIK) not been released yet. There is only a draft
available, and this draft is still kept secret (it's not available for
download). Only few people have access to it yet. I have a draft since a
few weeks and a few others have it too.
While I don't see the advantages of keeping it secret we definitely should
leave this decision to the FHS group. Until they release it to the public,
we shouldn't distribute it any further.
The Debian Policy is very clear: ``The location of all installed files and
directories must comply fully with the Linux Filesystem Structure
(FSSTND).''
Thus, the FHS does currently _not_ apply to Debian. (This should be quite
obvious since the FHS has not been released yet.)
However, as the FHS will replace the FSSTND once it's released, I think
Debian should convert to FHS _then_. (Note, that this is MHO. We'll have
to discuss this when the FHS is released.)
I've already checked the whole FHS regarding which changes would be
necessary to make Debian comply with it. (I've already scanned the FHS for
possible problems with Debian but haven't discovered anything.) Moving
from FSSTND to FHS will surely be a lot of work (I think every package
will be affected!) but I think it will be worth the troubles.
In summary, I suggest the following policy:
1. Until FHS is released, we'll continue to support FSSTND.
In some places the FSSTND is not very accurate. In these situations,
we should check out the FHS-draft and try to comply with it to make the
final migration from FSSTND to FHS simple.
2. When FHS is released, we'll discuss if we want to switch from FSSTND
to FHS. (I expect that we'll decide to do so. However, since every package
will be affected this decision surely needs its own discussion.)
Here is an example: One thing currently under discussion is the role of
/usr/share. The FSSTND does not say much about this. In the FHS-draft,
/usr/share plays an important role, for example, docs will be in
/usr/share/doc, man pages in /usr/share/man, etc.
If we agree on the two steps described above, this would mean:
1. all docs, man pages, etc. stay below /usr. For example, there will
be no /usr/share/doc for now.
2. Some packages are currently placing files in /usr/share/<prog> where
/usr/lib/<prog> has been used in the past. I think we should encourage
people to place arch-independent "lib" files into /usr/share/<prog>.
(Note, that this is fully complying with the FSSTND and will help with the
move to the FHS.)
Hope this mails really "clarifies" and doesn't start a new "flame war" :-)
Thanks,
Chris
-- Christian Schwarz
schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
Debian is looking schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
for a logo! Have a
look at our drafts PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
at http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/debian-logo/
Reply to: