Brian F. Kimball writes: > IMHO it's a good rationale for not having such mount points in the root > directory, but it's not a good rationale for specifying exactly where > those mount points should go and what they should be named. I still > think this should be a local issue.
FHS does not try to tell local sysadmins what to do. In fact, we couldn't care less. This is only about the default configuration for a clean install. I don't see how anyone could get the impression that FHS is trying to tell sysadmins what to do on their systems. What are we going to do ... send the sysadmin police after you? You only need to look so far as my home system and Transmeta to see how closely local practice matches the original configuration: four additional directories in root, five symbolic links in root, etc. (Well, I didn't add them!) There's the abstract (first page) which only talks about various types of interoperability, not local system administration. In section 1.5, "Scope", it says "It is primarily intended to be a reference and is NOT A TUTORIAL ON HOW TO MANAGE a conforming filesystem hierarchy." [emphasis added] In section 1.7, "Intended Audience", it says "System Administrators and other interested parties (FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES)". [emphasis added] I suppose I could add an additional sentence or two to the scope, but I'm not sure it would help much. - Dan
