Re: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.0 (fwd)
Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
>
> what about this :
> the new to-be 2.1 distribution should be empty (not all these
> symlinkls to the old hamm tree), and only real new packages with
> fhs should go there.
I don't see the connection between the ftp site and the file system on
user's machine.
Symlink I was talking about are on user's boxes, that can be freshly
installed with 2.1 (in fact we are talking of what will happen next
summer), or tha can be only upgraded (maybe partially) from 2.0 or even
1.3.1 .
I was talking about these two cases, that should be treated differently.
> i don't think we need symlinks.
Symlinks are the way that Unix has always handled such situation. I've
seen them used for these compatibility problems and they worked well for
years.
In fact, if you look at the new parts of fhs, you'll see the removal of
the symlink from /usr/tmp and /var/tmp, as well as /usr/preserve with
/var/preserve. Those symlinks appeared (in my personal experience) in
1989. You probably didn't ever noticed them.
> e.g. /usr/doc <-> /usr/share/doc isn't a good thing, will cause far
> more trouble than worth.
I'd like to read more rationale around such assertions.
Fabrizio
--
| fpolacco@icenet.fi fpolacco@debian.org fpolacco@pluto.linux.it
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
> Just because Red Hat do it doesn't mean it's a good idea. [Ian J.]
Reply to: