On Tue, 17 May 2011 11:06:51 +0000 Christoph Anton Mitterer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 19:14:27 +1000, Karl Goetz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The current wording says bash must exist, so i guess this wasn't > > such an issue (bash has printf as a builtin). > > There is a bug about changing to reference posix instead of > > specifying bash, perhaps this could be added as a prerequisite for > > that change. > a) Making bash a requirement should be dropped anyway. > b) Does it say bash needs to be installed, or does it say /bin/sh > needs to be bash? It says: > The following commands, or symbolic links to commands, are required > in /bin. [...] > sh The Bourne command shell [...] > If /bin/sh is not a true Bourne shell, it must be a hard or symbolic > link to the real shell command. > > The [ and test commands must be placed together in either /bin > or /usr/bin. > > Rationale: For example bash behaves differently when called as sh > or bash. The use of a symbolic link also allows users to easily see > that /bin/sh is not a true Bourne shell. > > The requirement for the [ and test commands to be included as > binaries (even if implemented internally by the shell) is shared with > the POSIX.2 standard. I guess we could add printf next to [ in that entry? > c) In any case: As printf might be called with full path,.. it should > be required IMHO. > > It's not that big deal anyway, is it? I mean one more small binary... i'm not fighting the change :) > > If i was proposing changes I would rather suggest change the > > wording to specify filesystem*s* (rather then the current > > filesystem) to allow the practise of (for example) > > using /mnt/sdc4 /mnt/sdb3 to rsync data between during recoveries. > > But this would already open up the abuse from applications as the CG > stuff I've mentioned before. key word here is abuse - i don't believe they'll stop abusing it just because we explicitly say they should. They are *already* failing to comply with the fhs on this. > This directory [/mnt] must not be used by installation programs: a > suitable temporary directory not in use by the system must be used > instead. ([/mnt] added by me.) > I'd simply say it is intended to be a single temporary mountpoint to > be handled by the admin (and especially not used by any programs). > If the admin now decides to makes subdirs, than this is up to him. > > We can't know which filesystems this is in advance. > That's why I say,.. put it completely in the hands of the distros. Hm, not sure about this - same with your printf above - what about had coded paths? > > there are bugs about X11R6 and the */games directories, are there > > other locations to look for? > No I guess that's it.... IIRC there were also some /*/X11 dirs. > Maybe one could also drop this. A quick apt-file check doesn't show any */X11/ dirs that look removable, unless its renaming X11-> Xorg in paths. thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
