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


Oh... I HATE Outlook (I'm at work, just read replies, and wanted to try to
write back, aparently Outlook F'ed me on the replies, so here's another
attempt to send them.
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 07:29:23AM -0500, Robert W. Current, Ph.D. wrote:
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/lsb-spec-0002/msg00015.html
> I strongly disagree with this (maybe it's too much BSD in my blood).
> I don't think that /etc/* should contain _all_ of anything.
> /usr/local/etc/ should contain most of the stuff, and have init levels
> been definded yet at all?  They need to be.  Using RHS ones (which I'm
> not sure I agree with) I would say:

> Are you trying to create a linux software base or a BSD software base?


> This is a fundamental philosophical difference, and any attempt to
> create a LSB that does not reflect that difference will only mean that
> the LSB will be ignored.

By who? you?  is this a comment or a flame?

> If you want a BSD system, run a BSD system.

Ah, a flame... I C.

Well, seeing as that you don't own exclusive rights to "Linux," then I don't
see as how you can say it shouldn't change unless you approve.

As for running BSD, I have since 1994.  Sue me.

As for Linux being fundamentally different than BSD, and it needing to be
different in order to "be Linux," that's complete and utter crap.  The
/usr/local/ issue is defined by FHS.  If you don't like it because you feel
it's too BSD, then work on changing FHS.  AFAIK, LSB is to comply with FHS,
not vice versa (For good reason).

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think your reading more into fhs than it intended.


It does say for sysadmins, but,  "It needs to be safe from being overwritten
when the system software is updated."  Meaning the intent is that "system
software" is held elsewhere.

It further says "This directory should always be empty after first
installing a FHS-compliant system."  Which is where one must define what a
"base system" actually is.  So, if Red Hat includes a ton of software in
their distribution, is that "Red Hat Packaged Software" or "Part of the
Linux Base System?"  I don't think it's the latter.

"Locally installed software should be placed within /usr/local rather than
/usr unless it is being installed to replace or upgrade software in /usr."

This clearly states that software, regardless of "commonly used" or not,
goes in /usr/local.  System software only goes in /usr/bin.

When a system is started in single user mode, /usr/local simply isn't used
until mounted/specified.  This is a security issue, say, ftpd and httpd
should be in /usr/local because it's not required/used by default in single
user mode.

Don't get caught in the "Well, it's a packaged binary, it goes in /usr not
/usr/local" trap, because it violates FHS.  Which means, some Linux
distributions may be violating FHS regularly when they package their


That states that "Note that software placed in / or /usr may be overwritten
by system upgrades (though we recommend that distributions do not overwrite
data in /etc under these circumstances). For this reason, local software
should not be placed outside of /usr/local without good reason."

In other words, if your installing it yourself, or it's a "package" with a
distribution, don't touch /etc.

So, I'll make your case for you... Since you comment was more flammable than

1) /usr/local/etc isn't defined in FHS.

2) Red Hat uses /etc/ only, and Red Hat is "de-facto standard"

3) Slackware uses /usr/local/etc, and therefore isn't really "Linux" it's

Point 1, true, so LSB needs to fill in the gaps.

Point 2, Irrelevant, we need to define a working "base" that's done
logically, not just "approve the dominate method."

Point 3, Idiotic.  Defining Linux as BSD or Sys V has not yet been done, and
is still being looked at.  The issue isn't if it's BSD or Sys V, the issue
is "If it conforms to an acceptable standard."  And if that means a hybrid
(hopefully not), then so be it.  As long as it's based in logical fact, not
reactionary "but I like it this way" attitude, progress will be positive.

-----Original Message-----
From: joh@unidui.uni-duisburg.de [mailto:joh@unidui.uni-duisburg.de]On
Behalf Of Jochem Huhmann
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:03 AM
To: lsb-discuss@lists.linuxbase.org
Subject: Re: RFC

* "Robert W. Current, Ph.D." <current@hel-inc.com> wrote:
> I don't think that /etc/* should contain _all_ of anything.

This is directly connected with the lack of a "base OS" in Linux. As
well as the usage of /usr/local as "playground" for the local sysadmin,
since every packaged software installs right in /usr and never in


Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-discuss-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org

--- End Message ---

Reply to: