On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 05:01 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 06, Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> wrote:
> > It's normal that in the process of drafting a standard, people will take > > into account the prevailing real-world practices, to ensure that the > > standard will be useful. Once something *is a standard*, you don't > > arbitrarily change what you're doing and claim that it still complies with > > the standard because "the standard follows what Red Hat does". > I am not claiming that this complies with the standard, just that it > does not matter because if there is a wide consensus (which does not > need to be unanimous) about this then eventually the standard will be > updated to reflect it. > Anyway, FHS also has examples of things changed long after they were > adopted by everybody, like /var/spool/mail/ vs. /var/mail/. I would ask a question to [FHS|udev-upstream|whoever] : What "smooth" migration path do you offer for those millions systems that are installed with a standalone /usr? I am grateful to udev developers and maintainers. I remember what was Linux before udev... (far too many "vim /etc/modules", MAKEDEV, chown and chmod ) FWIW, I did some statistics on installation-reports (in my debian-boot mailing list backlog). 48 reports has the string "% /dev" 18 reports has the string "% /usr" That's 37% ! This statistics are probably biased, because people with a single partition layout probably don't bother reporting their disk partitioning. My 2¢, Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org