Gentoo Archives: gentoo-desktop-research

From: Jamethiel Knorth <jamethknorth@×××××××.com>
To: devel-list@××××××××.org
Cc: fedora-devel-list@××××××.com, debian-devel@××××××××××××.org, gentoo-desktop-research@l.g.o, cooker@××××××××××××××.com, freebsd-arch@×××××××.org
Subject: [gentoo-desktop-research] Re: [RFC] User Accesable Filesystem Hierarchy Standard
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:44:04
After the previous suggestions on this topic, I have revised the proposed 
standard somewhat. It is still posted in a variety of formats at:

I added the suggestion of using .<distribution>/<architecture>/ for a 
directory structure, rather than my first change to simply putting it into a 
hidden umbrella directory of a standard name. However, I still have several 
questions regarding this which I could not find an immediate answer to:

Should there be a standard naming scheme for architectures, or should that 
be left completely to the devices of the distribution? I'm tending towards 
leaving it to the distribution, but would like some comments.

What about architecture independent systems, like Java? Should each distro 
include a 'java' architecture, or something of that sort? There is no 
particular reason for such files to be in every architecture's folder when 
they work fairly widely.

I also liked the idea of having group directories similar to the shared 
directory. In a larger work environment, such directories could solve many 
difficult problems. The standard doesn't say much about them, however, 
besides that they can be named arbitrarily and should have an internal 
structure identical to /home/shared/ and should be located somewhere in 
/home/. I don't see what else is needed to be defined on that topic, but 
would like any suggestions.

I see no reason to unhide the program folders. They are still perfectly 
accessible when they need to be accessed, but they can at least be kept out 
of sight. This is even more important when using a naming scheme based on 
the distribution which could result in very many folders.

Due to the fact that I merely added to and edited the old document, rather 
than going through and actually rewriting it, or at least checking it, the 
wording is clunky on several occasions. I'm not too concerned, as this is 
still a draft, and will work more on clarity when the ideas to be conveyed 
are better decided.

As always, thank you for your commentary and criticism.

Micah Abresch

P.S. In case anyone was wondering why this was sent to the lists it was: 
those are the groups which have easily accessible public lists and to which 
this proposed standard seemed relevant.

P.P.S. Many people have contributed ideas in discussions but aren't added to 
the contributors section. Luckily, everything is in a public archive so I 
can go back and see who suggested what, but it would be easier if anyone who 
wanted to be credited would just e-mail me about it.

Persistent heartburn? Check out Digestive Health & Wellness for information 
and advice.

gentoo-desktop-research@g.o mailing list