Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo vs. the FHS
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:26:57
Message-Id: 200309232326.48775.pauldv@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo vs. the FHS by Stanislav Brabec
1 On Tuesday 23 September 2003 22:08, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
2 > There are other issues, too:
3 >
4 > 1)
5 > /usr/libexec (should not exist, files should be moved to /usr/sbin
6 > and/or /usr/lib)
7 >
8 File bugs against the applications that do this. The files get there because
9 the installation makefiles put them there. /usr/sbin is not good as they are
10 not supposed to be run by users, but /usr/lib could be reasonable. But try to
11 first ask upstream why the packages use libexec. Some might have good
12 reasons, for others it solves the problem for others than gentoo.
13
14 > 2)
15 > /mnt (is reserved for administrator, subdirectories not allowed, mount
16 > point for removable media is not yet standardized, will probably be
17 > /media)
18 > http://bugs.freestandards.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27
19
20 rmdir /mnt/*
21 and create the /media, or wait until the standard is there
22
23 >
24 > 3)
25 > /home/httpd (/home is reserved for users, service home is not yet
26 > standardized, will probably be /srv, currently /var/lib or /var is used
27 > in other distros, too)
28 > Causes big problem on AFS or NFS /home systems (unable to emerge update
29 > on client machines; unable to have two webservers in one network,
30 > because they are sharing data).
31 >
32
33 This is being addressed, and will go to /var as we cannot work with probably
34
35 > 4)
36 > /usr/kde and /usr/qt (/usr should not have sub-trees, sub trees are
37 > allowed in /opt, i. e. /opt/kde and /opt/kde).
38 >
39 /opt is binary only. We have qt and kde from source, and they are also not
40 that well self-contained. If the FHS people create a good solution for this
41 we will be happy to use it, but /usr is not an option as it stops the ability
42 to have paralel versions.
43
44 > 4)
45 > /usr/games should be a directory for binaries, not subtree, (i. e.
46 > /usr/games/bin -> /usr/games, /usr/games/lib -> /usr/lib,
47 > /usr/games/share -> /usr/share/games).
48 >
49 > 5)
50 > /usr/X11R6/share is not in FHS (probably move --datadir to
51 > /usr/X11R6/lib/X11)
52
53 Unfortunatly things still need to work. People expect XFree to be installed
54 where it allways installs. That includes /usr/X11R6/share
55
56 >
57 > Issues 1, 4 and 5 can "automagically" solve GNU-FHS:
58 > ftp://ftp.penguin.cz/pub/users/utx/fhs/
59
60 The main point of the distribution is to be maintainer friendly and before
61 that to run well. This means that at some points we need to be flexible
62 enough to create solutions that are not offered by the FHS. Especially when
63 it does not offer good alternatives. That means that FHS compliance, while
64 desirable allways comes second to the costs needed to be compliant. This is
65 especially true in the many vague areas of the FHS (that even FHS zealots
66 cannot agree on).
67
68 Paul
69
70 --
71 Paul de Vrieze
72 Gentoo Developer
73 Mail: pauldv@g.o
74 Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo vs. the FHS splite-gentoo@××××××××××××××××.edu
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo vs. the FHS Stanislav Brabec <utx@g.o>