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

Re: Filesystem standards

J Rozes <jrozes@cs.tufts.edu> writes:

>> Also, I strongly urge anybody working on packages to subscribe to
>> the FSSTND group and keep abreast of things there.

Isn't there a better way to go about it than that?

The official documents which are released by FSSTND describe the
consensus of the FSSTND group.  Anything else, especially discussion
on the FSSTND list, is conjecture.  I do not wish to see anyone from
Debian believing that *anything* discussed on the channel has any

The FSSTND list already has a high number people on it, generating a
lot of (often unnecessary) volume.  If you have questions about
anything which is unclear in the standard or anything which isn't yet
in the standard, I urge you to contact me or another FSSTND
contributor before you mail to the list.

>> Also, before people begin throwing together binary packages, we need
>> to establish a hierarchy for optional packages that everybody agrees
>> on. Then we (as package maintainers) need to determine if our
>> particular package is 'base' or 'system' software or strictly
>> optional software and then build our respective packages
>> accordingly. There is a crazy debate on linux-FSSTND about this
>> stuff right now and I urge all package developers to follow it.

James A Robinson <jimr@simons-rock.edu> writes:

> The debate looks far from over, so the problem is we either have to
> decide now, and be willing to change when fsstnd decides, or we
> wait.  Unless they decided soon we are in a quandary.  Any comment
> Daniel Quinlan?

Yes.  I'd like to talk to Ian and Mike about this before speak

Please wait until then before we start a debate on this.  Let's not
start a repeat performance of what is now on the FSSTND list or what
happened back in September.

>> I believe the current concensus is that the /usr/local hierarchy is
>> strictly for locally written and installed software only, i.e. not
>> the place to put optional debian packages like term. Whether it
>> should go in /usr/* or /usr/opt/* or /usr/contrib/* needs to be
>> decided still.

Ian Murdock has already established that Debian will follow the FSSTND
on all filesystem matters.  This policy has been a good one for Debian
and I see no reason to change that now.

For now, stick with /usr unless you are assembling Khoros or something
that huge.  If you are, please mail me.

Also, Please follow-up to debian-devel (if you must follow-up at all).


Daniel Quinlan  <quinlan@spectrum.cs.bucknell.edu>

Reply to: