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

Re: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.0 (fwd)



I wrote:
> > For example, from what I've picked up so far, usr/doc is changing
> > to usr/share/doc. That doesn't sound a particularly worthwhile
> > change to me at present, so I would like to read a rationale for the changes.

On Wed, Nov 05, 1997 at 04:05:17PM +0000, Mark Baker wrote:
> It's moved to /usr/share because it _can_ be. We want as much as possible in
> there.

I've read the thing now and it makes sense. I'm not sure that "share"
is the best name since all of /usr is designed to be shared, but a bit
late for that now.

But I was shocked to see the Linux annex specify that
/usr/include/{asm,linux} should be a symlink -> /usr/src/linux/...
Are we in danger of being labelled FHS-compatible (instead
of FHS-compliant) because we do what libc6 and Linus both recommend?


hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt, StudIEAust              hamish@debian.org, hmoffatt@mail.com
Student, computer science & computer systems engineering.    3rd year, RMIT.
http://hamish.home.ml.org/ (PGP key here)             CPOM: [*****     ] 58%
The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.  --Bohr


Reply to: