Re: Comparing FHS 2.3 and 2.1
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:57:25PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hmmm. Speaking as the CVS maintainer, I'm not impressed by this new
> requirement. There are thousands of installations of CVS out there
> using ~/.cvspass and ~/.cvsrc. Moving all those files would be a
> nightmare at best; just imagine shared home space between different
> Unix-like systems...
I'll back Steve up on this. The stated goal of the FHS is to increase
interoperability between various *nix-like systems. This new rule
does nothing to further that goal. Whether you like the idea or not
(and I'll admit that it doesn't sound totally unpleasant on paper),
it's beyond the bounds of what the standard should be addressing.
What's worse, there's a discussion on the fhs list now about requiring
all apps to use a ~/.config or ~/.etc directory! And it seems to be a
popular idea. Someone needs to get out the old cluebat and start
pounding a little sense into some heads over there!
> Why are the FHS people even interested in user home directories?
I think it's called being drunk with power.
--
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Reply to: