Re: File Systems.
* "Paul M. Foster" <paulf@quillandmouse.com> wrote:
> BTW, much of your complaint about the filesystems really sounds like a
> complaint about the general nature of the FHS. If so, I must agree. You
> were onto something at one point when you said something like, "You should
> be able to unmount /usr and still boot/admin the system." (Did I get that
> right?) This is the type of thing that FHS needs: rather than general
> language, specific testable criteria.
What about that: "You should be able to umount /opt and /usr/local
and the remaining system should be completely specified by LSB".
If the FHS tries to leave /usr/local for local stuff (which I consider
as a good idea, I also don't like that mix of packages and local stuff
in /usr/local that *BSD does) it should also try to provide a dedicated
space for non-specified parts of the system.
/opt once has been the place for 3rd party applications in proprietary
Unices and this was possible because the rest of the system was from the
Unix-vendor. Now, in Linux, this gets meaningless, because distributors
embrace tons of software and call the whole thing "Foo Linux 7.0",
delivered on several CDs or DVD. Either all this is "Linux" or Linux is
what LSB specifies and everything else is additional 3rd party stuff.
Mixing this in /usr is an option (you don't *have* to separate it
physically), but not mixing it has clear advantages. So, what are the
advantages of mixing it? That is the part I don't understand. What is
clearer, easier to test and to maintain? If I were a distributor I would
like "everything I do in /opt does not touch LSB-compliance" very
much. And as admin I would like "/usr/local is mine, /opt is third
party, the rest is the system" also very much. Also much easier to
explain, that.
Jochem
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
Reply to: