Re: missing FHS archives
On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 12:30:24AM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Or GNU theirs. If GNU was involved in FHS discussions, there are
> probably good reasons why the FHS didn't take their views on board.
> If they weren't, then they should aim to follow the FHS anyway or aim
> to get involved in changing it. I haven't looked, but I would presume
> that the Debian GNU/Hurd port is following the FHS, so it can be
> done. (Otherwise, we'll have different Debian systems with radically
> different filesystem structures, which just seems to me a very bad
> prospect, for example, if people choose to migrate at some stage from
> Linux to the Hurd, and also for sysadmins trying to look at both
> Linux-based and Hurd-based Debian systems. Besides which, it's the
> current policy.)
GNU/Hurd *should* *not* *ever* follow FHS.
GNU/Hurd would lose at lot of it's ellegance then.
FHS has many bogus things as the whole `/usr' hierarchy,
which have *no* *value* *at* *all* on microkernel/multiserver
systems such as GNU/Hurd.
And FHS can't easily be changed, because too many systems have too simpistic
view on file systems, with data-storage-device and directory-subtrees
equivalent, so changed FHS wouldn't be very widely usable then. Better
try to make GNU/Linux use GNU fs hierarchy (finaly, it's free OS, so we
can do what we want with it).
What about relase goal for woody :
with woody one will be able to have (/bin /usr/bin /usr/X11R6/bin /usr/games) stuff
in one directory, (/sbin + /usr/sbin), (/lib + /usr/lib + /usr/X11R6/lib) and
(/usr/share/man + usr/X11R6/man) also as long as they are properly symlinked.
Reply to: