| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Ralph Sennhauser <sera@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 20:05:47 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> [snip] |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> You should consider taking like 1 or 2 hours of your precious time to |
| 9 |
>> read about the use and meaning of various directories in the |
| 10 |
>> filesystem. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The FHS gives different meaning to directories than the systemd folks |
| 14 |
> like it to be. Yes, it's unpleasant how far that sort of breakage |
| 15 |
> already progressed. However, by definition software not adhering to the |
| 16 |
> current standard is what is broken and not the other way around. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
We have never aimed to be FHS compliant, so citing the standard is not |
| 19 |
likely to persuade some. |
| 20 |
We follow them where we think they make sense and ignore the parts we |
| 21 |
think are stupid. |
| 22 |
Just like PMS :) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-A |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> There is nothing wrong with changing an old standard if there is a need, |
| 28 |
> though until a new standard is approved / accepted there is no ground |
| 29 |
> to change anything and breaking the current standard on purpose is plain |
| 30 |
> stupid. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Btw, do you happen to know what is going on with FHS-3.0 and why |
| 33 |
> there are delays. Wasn't it supposed to be announced in summer 2011? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Then do you happen to know a technical paper which actually discuss the |
| 36 |
> advantage / disadvantages of changing the current standard. All I have |
| 37 |
> read on this topic so far looks like propaganda material only or lists |
| 38 |
> non arguments like "less top level directories". |
Archives