On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 04:13:50PM +0100, Tony Travis wrote: > On 18/05/11 15:40, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > [...] > > OpenBSD was involved as well:
> > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=130499860531930&w=4 > > The conclusion, all around, was that *BSD wasn't interested in the FHS. > Actually, I think it should be the other way around: The FHS should be > interested in how *BSD filesystems are configured, because the FHS is > intended to be a platform independent standard for Posix-like systems. But "platform independent" is not intended to be "description that is so all-inclusive that it becomes useless to people trying to use it to predict the layout and behavior of a compliant system". The FHS has always described a single set of rules the user can rely on for where to find various components of the system. If the BSDs aren't interested in meeting existing FHS-compliant Linux distros part way on this, it's detrimental to the standard to pursue them. (This is not theoretical; the use of /usr/lib/<dir> instead of /usr/libexec/<dir> in the FHS is a divergence from GNU policy that, as I've heard it, was a concession to the BSD folks who were engaged in FHS discussions at the time. No BSD distribution has adopted the FHS since then. <shrug>) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
