On 05/17/2011 09:33 AM, Bruno Cornec wrote: > Martin Baehr said on Tue, May 17, 2011 at 05:16:25PM +0200: > >> i get the impression however that compared to the FHS these documents >> are much more descriptive and not prescriptive. they simply document the >> existing structure and don't set rules. > > Do you think it could be worth to work on a compliance script ? I find a > standard without tool to support them less usefull. > > I think it could help producers of OSes provide a result of compliance > of their system to the FHS x.y. Could even lead to a certification label. > Could also help showing the differences, that could then be discussed > for further versions of the FHS. > > And the tool just reports results, but again doesn't force the system in > any way.
There's some code in an LSB testsuite for this, since LSB references FHS. It would likely have to be ripped out of the framework to make it a little more standalone, but possibly easier than starting from scratch. (it's all shell code, but it's got plenty of calls inside it that are particular to the framework) _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
