On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 05:00:21PM -0500, Richard Kreuter wrote: > Here's the objection, for consideration: basing inclusion in /com on > the capabilities of the relevant software will keep many things that > should be shareable stuck in /var: if somebody puts together some > program/system that does the right thing by non-host-specific files > (i.e., reliably and correctly updates on multiple machines at once), > then if inferior alternative program/systems are relevant (e.g., > supported by the distributor, commonly used, etc.), then the better > software/system will be stuck putting files in /var instead of /com. > (I recognize that /com is defined not by host-specificity, but data > shareability, but presumably one wants the non-host-specific data to > be shareable, right?)
This sounds interesting, but I'm not sure I fully grasp what you mean here. I think it sounds a bit like one of the objections that I raised (that membership in /com versus /var depends pretty heavily on the technology and practice of the day, and may be different tomorrow, and different again the day after). perhaps you could clarify? Carl Soderstrom. -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com _______________________________________________ Help-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
