Richard Hartmann wrote on Tue, May 17, 2011 at 05:39:54PM +0200: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 17:16, Martin Baehr > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> it is likely that the interest in participating in the FHS effort from >> the *BSD camp is low simply because they may not be interested in >> prescribing any structure, but only documenting their reality. Well, both hier(7) and additional documents, for example porting guides, *are* used to prescribe structure; however, hierarchy rules are rather static, and documentation *is* considered very important. Also, some rules differ among different *BSD operating systems. That said, your statement still comes close to the truth; i don't see much enthusiasm for reshuffling existing directory hierarchies round here. Taking OpenBSD as an example, there is no general reluctance to change, not even regarding larger, backward-incompatible changes - *if* they make the system better, and the improvement is worth the effort that needs to be spent on upgrading production machines. On the other hand, large churn by gratuitiously renaming stuff is not likely to happen, even if that would make nomenclature more similar to other operating systems. > Only one way to find out. > Does anyone happen to know a BSD core person? There is no such thing as "BSD core"; decision making processes are independent (and vastly different) in all *BSD projects. FreeBSD and NetBSD have formal core teams, OpenBSD and DragonFly do not. That said, i know a few NetBSD and FreeBSD developers and most of the OpenBSD developers. Yours, Ingo _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
