Re: New filesystem standard - do we want it ?
On Sun, 26 Oct 1997, Ian Jackson wrote:
[snip]
> My preferred stance for Debian would be to specify that we follow the
> FHS but with certain exceptions. The exceptions ought to be decided
> on here, but broadly speaking I think we should make an exception
> where a directory or hierarchy has been moved from its location the
> FSSTND, without any good technical reason.
Totally agreed.
We'd also have to discuss _when_ we start with the implementation. I
don't think we could keep the scheduled release date for 2.0 if we start
to move to FHS now.
Here is an incomplete list of changes that would produce lots of work:
/usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc (this affects _every_ package!)
/usr/man -> /usr/share/man
/usr/dict -> /usr/share/dict
/usr/info -> /usr/share/info
/var/lib/dpkg -> /var/state/dpkg (probably a bad idea!)
In addition, there are lots of minor changes that will affect only a few
packages. For example:
/var/catman -> /var/cache/man
/var/spool/texmf -> /var/cache/fonts
I suggest to implement FHS 2.0 with a few exceptions _after_ hamm (2.0)
is released. Until then, we can discuss the different changes in detail
and decide which parts of the FHS we'll drop.
In addition, all other policy changes should be made with the
FHS-migration in mind. (For example, we should consider moving a few
documentation files to /usr/share/doc when we discussi the new
Documentation Policy.)
Thanks,
Chris
-- Christian Schwarz
schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
Don't know Perl? schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
http://www.perl.com http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/
Reply to: