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

Bug#282067: yes!



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:

> Frankly, I'd like to see a $HOME cleanup.  Dotfiles are hard to manage,

[...]
>
> I agree that policy is rather blunt for this to happen, but the desire
> needs to be expressed somewhere.
>
> The one change I'd make is for $HOME/etc rather than $HOME/.etc.  It's
> already common practice to have ~/bin and ~/tmp directories, frequently
> others.  Reflecting /usr's top level, with bin, etc, var, tmp, lib, and
> var might be the best way to go.

I also prefer $HOME/etc (I already have bin, share, lib
etc. directories there).  However, implementing this is going to break
compatibility with *every other system in existence*!  For this reason
alone the migration is a non-starter until a workable mechanism for
transition is created.

If symlinks were used, it will break with editors like Emacs that snap
links, or with programs that rewrite/update their conffiles.  Hard
links would be better (won't increase inode usage, but will still be
snapped and won't work with directories).

While the idea has merit, can you imagine how annoyed every upstream
developer will be?  Some are already antagonistic to GNU/Linux
developers.  Many (including me) are still angry about the treatment
of libexec.  Remember, the FHS and LSB were meant to *standardise
existing practice*, not shove unwanted changes down our throats and
tell us that things that are already are common practice are now no
longer allowed.


Regards,
Roger

- -- 
Roger Leigh
                Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
                Debian GNU/Linux        http://www.debian.org/
                GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFBxDzkVcFcaSW/uEgRAnZeAKCzu31f2kbEtMpwv3/kGIuhZLICDgCfa2/y
3ld6hFHdq7o9MMO84EJA6Vs=
=MT9F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: