| 1 |
Caleb Tennis <caleb@g.o> said: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tuesday 23 September 2003 03:08 pm, Stanislav Brabec wrote: |
| 4 |
>> There are other issues, too: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> <snip> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I don't understand the logic behind blindly following a document like the FHS. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
FHS is made so that f*cking proprietary application get well installed on every |
| 11 |
distribution, so that they can sell more, and make the big linux actors (IBM |
| 12 |
and co), more rich. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
If you agree with this way to let linux go forward (I have no opinion on that), |
| 15 |
then be FHS compliant. It's certain that being FHS compliant is a plus when |
| 16 |
dealing with proprietary software companies. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> If there are compelling reasons why a directory of installation path is |
| 19 |
> incorrect, then it needs to be addressed. However, I can tell you that 99% |
| 20 |
> of Linux users have multiple directories underneath /mnt (cdrom, hd, |
| 21 |
> usbhd...). This is a violation of the FHS. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
dams |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives