Hi, On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: > > FHS 2.3 is about to be released RSN but there's some controversy over > > /srv and /media. It would be good if Debian had an opinion about > > this, so please look at the proposals and comment on them here. > > > > Addition of /srv: > > http://bugs.freestandards.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16 > > > > Addition of /media: > > http://bugs.freestandards.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27 > Seems to be inaccesible. Is there a mirror somewhere?
For the bugs, no. But FHS 2.3 beta is available here: http://www.samba.org/~cyeoh/ The diff 2.2 to 2.3 beta _1_ is here: http://www.samba.org/~cyeoh/fhs_2.3_changes.txt The 2.3 beta _3_ announcement is here: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3402935&forum_id=3128 and includes some objections from RedHat and a favourable comment by SUSE and Connectiva. Tobias PS: I never had problems accessing http://bugs.freestandards.org/, it worked this morning and it is now working. PPS: Regarding to FHS 2.3 minus /srv and /media: I'm in favour of this /media: Bad name maybe, but no-one has come up with a better name definitively better than /mnt/cdrom etc. I'm personally not sure whether I like /cdrom, /floppy etc. or /media/{cdrom,floppy} more. /srv: For real servers this is a better place than (a) /home or /var/lib and (b) /etc, /var, /usr, etc. scattering. The FHS is vague enough to allow distributions to put such data at /srv or at {/etc,/usr,/var}. Therefore I like this proposal. The question is whether Debian should use /srv or only create the directory. In total: Thumb up for FHS 2.3
