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 independent of any particular UNIX > implementation, and continues to be useful to non-Linux UNIXes. Good, at least the Linux kids haven't totally forgotten the other grumpies out there :)
> 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? > If you are interested, consider this an invitation to participate. > We've set up a mailing list, Web site, etc., and are reviving the > old bug tracker. More details can be found here: > > http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb/fhs There are numerous show stoppers, IMO. First off, the document is very Linux specific. Although I can't back up the claim, I'm pretty sure that other OSes wheren't given much thought in the early days of this document. Here are what I would call, "show stoppers". And this applies to OpenBSD, as I view it. - OpenBSD has gone to great lengths to centralize all it's configuration into one place: /etc so anything contrarty to that, is a simple no go. - A number of the directories do not make sense on OpenBSD: /lib For what libraries ? /bin and /sbin contains binaries that are statically linked (for a very good reason) so this is pointless. /opt Add-on application packages go into /usr/local/ on OpenBSD and the rest of the *BSDs Here there is one difference between Open and Free that I've come to dislike, FreeBSD stuffs configuration files into /usr/local/etc /media Mount point for removable media, okey; I thought that was what /mnt was for, and /mnt is still in the HFS ? (OK, I can see the point, just to help Gnome users :) /srv This doesn't even have a good rationale in the HFS, what exectly is this supposed to be, I think every *BSD Admin expects to find data for or from services provided by the system inside /var So the above things do not make sense in the general case, and as for the rest of the document, you can easly state that OpenBSD is atleast partially compliant! Unfortunetly, i don't think the HFS is relevant to current or future developments of OpenBSD; Atleast not in it's current state. But I think the document is intresting, and maybe I'll butt in and offer some of my opinions :) Oh! And I almost forgot, we already have our very own HFS, it's in hier(7) :-) regards, thib.
