Re: FHS reqts on Applications
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Andrew Josey wrote:
> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:59:23 +0100
> From: Andrew Josey <email@example.com>
> Reply-To: Andrew Josey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: FHS reqts on Applications
> Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:59:54 +0200
> Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> In chapter 17 we state:
> "An LSB conforming system must adhere to the FHS 2.2.
> The FHS allows many components or subsystems to be optional. An
> application must check for the existence of an optional component before
> using it, and should behave in a reasonable manner if the optional
> component is not present."
> I believe we should also add the requirement
> "An LSB conforming application must adhere to the FHS2.2"
> to make it plain that they are expected to adhere to the
> requirements for applications within FHS 2.2 , use of /opt
> and placement of application files.
You are right, but just if the final formulation will also declare that
the last word about this spects to the sysadmin, who is responsable for
his changes to FHS 2.2.
This way you gain the maximum flexibility for sysadmins, while
you give a strong directive to programmers.
It happens that syadmins, in order to get their system to work properly,
have to violtate FHS, so they have to be able to do so, while programmers
have to plan their apps do that they can conform to FHS.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email firstname.lastname@example.org