On Tue, 10 May 2011 01:21:
wrote:
On 05/10/2011 12:28 AM, Kamo Hiroyasu wrote:
I do not understand the benefits of FHS for Unixen other than Linux.
Most Unixen, including OpenBSD, are older than FHS and have their own
historical constraints. What do we obtain except for switching costs
if we
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 23:21:23 -0500
From: Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:33:27PM -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
(Sorry if this isn't the proper list for this discussion. If not,
please point me in the right direction.)
The Linux Foundation's LSB workgroup
Many UNIX systems include a hier(7) man page, OpenBSD is no exception.
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=hiermanpath=OpenBSD+Currentformat=html
-Bryan.
* Jeff Licquia j...@licquia.org [2011-05-10 05:36]:
My question to you is: do you consider the FHS to be relevant to
current and future development of OpenBSD? If not, is this simply
due to lack of maintenance; would your interest in the FHS be
greater with more consistent updates?
we'll
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jeff Licquia j...@licquia.org wrote:
My question to you is: do you consider the FHS to be relevant to current
and
future development of OpenBSD? If not, is this simply due to lack of
maintenance; would your interest in the FHS be greater with more consistent
On 10/05/2011 5:34 PM, Artur Grabowski wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Jeff Licquiaj...@licquia.org wrote:
My question to you is: do you consider the FHS to be relevant to current
and
future development of OpenBSD? If not, is this simply due to lack of
maintenance; would your
On Tue, 10 May 2011 09:05:13 +0200
Landry Breuil wrote:
Some parts of FHS won't apply on OpenBSD, like /srv, /opt,
Linux ignores security mechanisms like noexec on /tmp, /home and then
pointlessly adds /opt seemingly just to annoy people who care about
partitioning!!
And DON'T try spinning me
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:33:27PM -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
(Sorry if this isn't the proper list for this discussion. If not,
please point me in the right direction.)
This is the proper list.
Despite all the Linux in the names above, we're wanting to make
sure that the FHS remains
Hi Jeff,
Jeff Licquia wrote on Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:33:27PM -0400:
(Sorry if this isn't the proper list for this discussion. If not,
please point me in the right direction.)
Since your enquiry is not backed up by a patch proposing specific
changes to the OpenBSD operating system, this
system32 - 64 bit dll + apps
sysWOW - 32 bit dll + apps
How's that for backwards compatibility.
That's utterly ridiculous. The guy responsible for such things should
be fired :)
(Sorry if this isn't the proper list for this discussion. If not,
please point me in the right direction.)
The Linux Foundation's LSB workgroup has taken over maintenance of the
Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, and is working on a number of updates
needed since its last release in 2004.
. If the
explanation is available and acceptable, we can accept FHS.
Otherwise, we neet not consider FHS.
Kamo Hiroyasu
[Kamo is the family name and Hiroyasu the given name.]
From: Jeff Licquia j...@licquia.org
Subject: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) and OpenBSD
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 23:33:27 -0400
On 05/10/2011 12:28 AM, Kamo Hiroyasu wrote:
I do not understand the benefits of FHS for Unixen other than Linux.
Most Unixen, including OpenBSD, are older than FHS and have their own
historical constraints. What do we obtain except for switching costs
if we accept FHS?
It is not we but FHS
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 01:21:15AM -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The standard itself claims to apply to any UNIX-like system, and to
not be Linux-specific; I'm wanting to find out if that's true.
Perhaps then you would be interested in item 14 of the OpenBSD porting
checklist:
14 matches
Mail list logo
