On 11/16/2011 07:33 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I don't know of any *programs* that rely on ed/at/batch. Sure users can and do use them, but do they need to be part of a standard?
yes... the point is what install and startup scripts can rely on, as mentioned the other day the "postinstall" script of Google Chrome uses at to schedule an upgrade check (maybe I wouldn't have chosen to do it this way), but can only do so because it has a high degree of confidence it will be found. Similarly for the example cited of ed being used from a script to "localize" a configuration.
It's not that your points in the rest of the message are invalid, it's clear a lot has changed and some choices don't seem useful any longer. But it's always hard to shed legacy stuff, as you can see from the various arguments that have arisen over efforts to do so - "system V" style initscripts vs. systemd is a current one. Maybe this is a useful transition, but what happens to apps packaged with initscripts? (this is an LSB concern). Will they continue to work properly through transition mechanisms, or will they just break?
The difficulty for LSB and FHS is trying to describe what systems actually do, and to not unreasonably constrain progress forward, but at the same time provide a little consistency for people (app developers, users, etc.). Not saying we get that balancing act right all the time, but discussions like this one are healthy in keeping it in the foreground.
_______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
