10:53 a.m.
Do we intend to implement the new bits of FHS for Fedora Core 2? For
instance, there is now wording about /usr/share/xml.
Tim.
*/
3:44 p.m.
On Wednesday 04 February 2004 17:53, Tim Waugh wrote:
Do we intend to implement the new bits of FHS for Fedora Core 2?
For
instance, there is now wording about /usr/share/xml.
I would really like it, especially the /media, /mnt, /srv and /usr/src stuff.
--
http://LinuxWiki.org/RonnyBuchmann
4:28 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 04 February 2004 13:44, Ronny Buchmann wrote:
I would really like it, especially the /media, /mnt, /srv and
/usr/src stuff.
These are some of the things many of us specifically do NOT like about
FHS 2.3.
- --
Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org)
Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org)
GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Was I helpful? Let others know:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAIXIG4v2HLvE71NURAmBfAJ4qggCtOr5D0RxLX8ZFBhLAYC8VUQCgqzsN
dh14S3NvxfTTu9wTmTO+bQU=
=ltwl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
4:42 p.m.
Le mer, 04/02/2004 à 14:28 -0800, Jesse Keating a écrit :
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 04 February 2004 13:44, Ronny Buchmann wrote:
> I would really like it, especially the /media, /mnt, /srv and
> /usr/src stuff.
These are some of the things many of us specifically do NOT like about
FHS 2.3.
How about merging the uncontroversial bits, then and let LSB people
fight over the parts some people do not like ?
I don't think anyone will object to /usr/share/xml or /usr/src, and this
will impact a lot more packages than /srv/ or /media.
Cheers,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
3:53 p.m.
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 10:44:24PM +0100, Ronny Buchmann wrote:
I would really like it, especially the /media, /mnt, /srv and
/usr/src stuff.
Hey!!! /srv! I hadn't looked at the new FHS release, but that pretty much
makes my day. Cool -- /var/www has always grated on me.
I'm not so sure I agree about the /media vs. /mnt/subdir thing, but I don't
care so much.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
4:13 p.m.
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Tim Waugh wrote:
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:53:57 +0000
From: Tim Waugh <twaugh(a)redhat.com>
To: fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GFPlsJ7YtLjXgs8j"
List-Id: Development discussions related to Fedora Core
<fedora-devel-list.redhat.com>
Subject: FHS 2.3?
Do we intend to implement the new bits of FHS for Fedora Core 2? For
instance, there is now wording about /usr/share/xml.
Many people have objections to things in the new FHS 2.3, and I'm
no exception. Nonetheless, the new FHS exists, and I'm curious
also what our official plans (if any yet) are with respect to the
FHS 2.3.
Since many of us will have packages that are affected, there are
a few questions that would be good to know the answers to sooner
rather than later, however these questions might not yet have
solid answers, and may require some deliberation. Here are a few
questions on my mind at least:
- Are we going to support the FHS 2.3 or not?
- Are we going to wait until FHS 2.3 is adopted by LSB?
- If we are adopting FHS 2.3, what distribution will it be
targeting - FC2 / FC3 / RHEL4? beyond that?
Of course it may be too early for an answer to these questions to
be available yet, so Pentagon briefing style answers are
sufficient if necessary. ;o)
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
5:08 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 09:53, Tim Waugh wrote:
Do we intend to implement the new bits of FHS for Fedora Core 2?
For
instance, there is now wording about /usr/share/xml.
FWIW, I noticed that SUSE9 uses /srv for Apache and .
Other than the major pain in changing to /srv, it seems like a good
idea.
Better for backup, sizing, and LVM than:
/var/www/
/var/ftp/
/var/lib/mysql/
/var/lib/pgsql/
blah blah
Dax
2:43 a.m.
On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 00:08, Dax Kelson wrote:
On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 09:53, Tim Waugh wrote:
> Do we intend to implement the new bits of FHS for Fedora Core 2? For
> instance, there is now wording about /usr/share/xml.
FWIW, I noticed that SUSE9 uses /srv for Apache and .
It's been used by some distributions in violation of FHS for a while (it
stated not to add extra dirs to /)
3:24 a.m.
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Trond Eivind [ISO-8859-1] Glomsr�d wrote:
> > Do we intend to implement the new bits of FHS for Fedora
Core 2? For
> > instance, there is now wording about /usr/share/xml.
>
> FWIW, I noticed that SUSE9 uses /srv for Apache and .
It's been used by some distributions in violation of FHS for a while (it
stated not to add extra dirs to /)
And if those distributions were LSB compliant, then one is to
assume that distros that do not switch to using /srv must be LSB
compliant also. ;o)
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
2:12 p.m.
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 04:24:57AM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
And if those distributions were LSB compliant, then one is to
assume that distros that do not switch to using /srv must be LSB
compliant also. ;o)
To be fair, SuSE started doing that as a result of discussion on the LSB
list long ago.
In any case, I think it's a mistake to make /srv not-optional -- not all
systems have data that should go there.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
7445
days inactive
7448
days old
10 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Dax Kelson -
Jesse Keating -
Matthew Miller -
Mike A. Harris -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Ronny Buchmann -
Tim Waugh -
Trond Eivind Glomsrød -
Xose Vazquez Perez