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

Re: [users] Re: [OT] Is Redhat *that* bad?



On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:23:03PM -0400, MaD dUCK wrote:
> also sprach Alan Shutko (on Fri, 18 May 2001 05:58:29PM -0400):
> > Nobody can find convincing arguments for linuxconf... but nobody
> > forces you to use it.  Many RHL users remove it on sight... I did,
> > when I was using it.
> 
> so did i. nevertheless, i don't know about redhat 7.x anymore, but
> redhat 6.x couldn't even stick to file system standard.

redhat packages rarely fix upstream file locations to be FHS
compliant, they just put things whereever upstream happens to put
them.  and many upstream developers do some hideous things with file
layout...  (*cough* GNU mailman, mozilla *cough*).  

openssh rpms create /usr/libexec for the sftpd daemons, libexec is a
*BSD thing, FHS says such things should go in /usr/lib/<program> or
/usr/sbin.   

we won't talk about /usr/doc...

rpm IS an inferior packaging system, but to be fair alot of the
problems are the fault of lazy/incompetant .rpm packagers and not of
the system itself.  the FHS stuff for instance falls fully on the
shoulders of the packager.  

debian's strongest points are not allowing any bozo who can type
`dpkg-buildpackage' to install packages into debian's archive.  and
thier strict policy REQUIRING such things as FHS compliance and to
never overwrite config files without permission.  (among many other
things). 

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

Attachment: pgpkKRC0FmAbl.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: