On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 01:25:47PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The FHS and LSB are not the same thing. This is, in fact, the wrong list on
> which to discuss the LSB.
This is a key point.
> > 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?
>
> You've already been given an example of a third-party package that uses at.
Just about every program named in the FHS as it stands has been defended by
someone.
What I don't understand is, why are there *any* programs guaranteed to be
present in the *Filesystem Heirarchy Standard*? We don't make any guarantees
about what the programs actually do, beyond a very brief english description,
("mounts filesystems"), not whether/how they work. One could provide a
mount(8) which was totally incompatible with the conventional mount(8) and be
FHS-compliant, and utterly useless. (perhaps you would be POSIX-incompliant,
in which case, POSIX is already covering the "mount is available and works"
requirement, so why does the FHS mention it?)
I can understand a vendor writing software for systems which are LSB-compliant
and therefore the LSB specifiying the availability of certain standard bits of
software (possibly via inheriting POSIX, in which case it does not need
repeating in a downstream standard). But what has that got to do with the
filesystem layout? Is this not entirely the wrong standard to stick this stuff
in?
--
Jon Dowland
_______________________________________________
fhs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
