On 08/18/2011 01:27 AM, Bruno Cornec wrote: > If this community thinks those are useful comments (which my mail was > trying to assess ;-) then I can indeed create BZ entries for them. Now > other contributors needs to say whether they agree or not with these > comments, before I create useless stuff :-)
Here's my impressions; take them for whatever they're worth, which may be nothing. :-) We don't ever mind people filing bugs we eventually reject, so don't be shy in that regard. We'll just close them with a polite note explaining why. >>> After reading it I have some questions: >>> >>> 1/ shouldn't /usr/include be optional (production system may not need it >>> at all or are there some really mandatory include files needed on a >>> system that I'm not aware of ?) I think the idea is that /usr/include should exist, even if it's empty. But it makes sense that /usr/include might not need to exist. >>> 2/ shoudn't there be a note to say that sharing /usr content may lead to >>> issues with package managers of Linux distributions ? (as exposed during >>> some previous discussions on the ML) There are a number of reasons why a shareable or read-only /usr might not work, most of which are tied to specific decisions made by specific distributions. I think it might make sense to put in a note that actual support of read-only or shareable /usr is not required by the FHS and is up to the individual distribution to support. >>> 3/ Even if I understand the rationale, I find strange that the mail >>> spool isn't under /var/spool, and the Linux distro I use still place it >>> under that directory, having just a symlink in /var to it. Some of us would find it strange to put a non-spooling directory in /var/spool. People can disagree, I suppose. Your distro should be OK with a /var/mail symlink. >>> 4/ On Linux systems, the kernel is more often located under /boot than / >>> in the distributions I'm using. maybe that should be at least noted as >>> an alternative in 6.1.1 It is so noted in section 3.5.2. >>> 5/ shouldn't there be a reference to LANANA for major/minor # device >>> list (http://www.lanana.org/docs/device-list/ ) in 6.1.3 ? I'm not sure we need to. The kernel enforces major/minor number usage to the extent that you won't be able to use devices with bogus numbers. Apps shouldn't care except in very unusual cases, and distro people know where to get the proper list. >>> 6/ Maybe you should update the (c) date and content to add the LF ? Yes; as noted in the announcement, we haven't done updates to the copyright notices, frontmatter, and other editorial stuff. The idea was to put the new normative text out there for review while we work on those issues. -- Jeff Licquia The Linux Foundation +1 (317) 915-7441 [email protected] Linux Foundation Events Schedule: events.linuxfoundation.org Linux Foundation Training Schedule: training.linuxfoundation.org Join us this year in celebrating the 20th Anniversary of Linux! Watch the "Story of Linux" here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ocq6_3-nEw See all of the 20th Anniversary activities here: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/20th _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
