Roland Mainz wrote:
Martin Man wrote:
David J. Orman wrote:
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Was there a document at some point in history ( this is UNIX and it
has tons of history ) called the FSSTD or was it FHS ?
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html
( this may be a Linux animal however )
That's the Linux Standards Base filesystem layout, and should be
violently ignored by Solaris.
Yes, I can only second that comment. The "Linux Standards Base
filesystem layout" is totally braindead.
Thirded. It's terrible.
Anyone having some pointers to concrete evaluation/discussion why this
document is terrible, brainder, flawed, etc?
no religion please...
My personal complaint is that they stuff everything into /usr/bin/. Unix
had some kind of "namespace" support via the elements in ${PATH} so
having package groups seperated into /usr/dt/bin/ (CDE), /usr/kde3/bin
(KDE3), /usr/xpg4/bin/ (XPG4 personality) and so on is a much cleaner
approach than stuffing everything into /usr/bin/.
Good package management (that is not present ATM in Solaris) will take
care of /usr/bin for you.
Same applies to
${MANPATH}&.co. There is no real way anymore to set/override/disable
things since it's now all in /usr/bin/.
When you need to override the things, debian comes with alternatives
mechanism that works pretty well in most cases...
In my experience as an
adminstrator with many users (who all have different requirements) this
design is VERY VERY bad in real life.
...same here, never had a problem in this area with debian over past 5
years (Serving different users with different requirements)
Debian ships 3 versions of python (that all can be installed alongside),
same for gcc-2.x, gcc-3.x, gcc-4.x, again no problem here
if you really want, you still have /opt/, which is FHS compliant and
which many distros use for the *exact* purpose you mention (to install
different suites of software of different versions that you can easily
include/exclude in PATH) (Suse, fedora), and you still have /usr/local/
where you can do whatever you want if the rest fails.
IMHO whatever the brokeness of FHS is, Linux distros agreed to use it in
order to make *users* and *admins* and *developers* more happy when
using/writing/admining software. And in fact FHS helped to make the
Linux world cleaner (much the same way HTML makes you view your pages).
I don't know about any other recent standard that might replace it
(which of course could be only my ignorance)... or the lack of promotion
of such standard...
----
Bye,
Roland
in peace,
Martin
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
