On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 05:07:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Both the LSB and FSH are "Linux standards" we actually don't have to > > do much with. The filesystem is already partly described under the > > Makefile subject in the GNU Coding Standards. > > No, that's not correct.
Ok, the FSH is a unix standard, the difference doesn't really matter for us. > The FSH was explicitly designed as being more than just a "Linux > standard", and the GNU Project has always cooperated with it. (I have > no particular opinions about LSB.) The FSH has always known that > different systems would need annexes. The point of a Hurd-specific > annex is to outline filesystem properties that all Hurd-based systems > should conform to. It's for unix systems, GNU isn't a unix system. If we will build a filesystem hierarchy based on shadowfs one day, I doubt it will actually resemble something the FHS specifies. > It is a great mistake to confuse the GNU Coding Standards with a file > hierarchy standard. They are related, but not anything like the same > thing. If you build a GNU system from scratch your filesystem hierarchy will be as specified in the makefiles. So in fact the GNU Coding Standards defines how your filesystem looks like. The FHS is useless if no software actually implements it. And depending on a standard you don't have much control about is just bad IMHO. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC ID: jeroen@openprojects GNU supporter - http://www.gnu.org
msg02344/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
