Re: Resolutions to comments on LSB-FHS-TS_SPEC_V1.0
Unnamed sources report that Erik Troan said:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Florian La Roche wrote:
>
> > This standardization project should be documenting the current state
> > and the current movement. This will bring the Linux distributions
Hmm, is that the point of a standardization project, to document the
current state of the art? I would hope that such an undertaking would
consider the current state of the art but also point out where "common
practice" is making a mistake. With respect to the case in point,
/var/mail seems to be the standard everywhere but Linux, which generally
uses /var/spool/mail. If Linux wants to play nice with the other *NIXes,
we should mandate /var/mail, deprecate /var/spool/mail, indicate a "to be
withdrawn" date of X for /var/spool/mail, and suggest a link from /var/mail
to /var/spool/mail to kick-start the transition. This gives vendors
time to rebuild all of the affected applications, and puts users and
developers on notice that the change will be happening.
> I think this is a strong point. The distributions have all agreed on
> this, FSSTND 1.2 recommended it, nobody has implemented FHS 2.0, and
> somehow we want to try and get all of the distributions to change for
> no compelling reason.
If FHS 2.0 is out there and no one is implementing it, that's a vendor
problem. I've personally taken small steps to bring my system into FHS 2
compliance, but it would be a lot easier if the distribution vendors
did it.
> Funny, people complain that the distributions don't get along and seem
> to disregard our input when we do.
Noted.
--
Kurt Wall
Informix on Linux FAQ - http://www.xmission.com/~kwall/iolfaq.html
Spanish Translation - http://www.xmission.com/~kwall/iolfaqsp.html
Reply to: