On 6/21/19 7:35 AM, Thorsten Kukuk wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, Frans de Boer wrote: > >> On 21-06-19 15:19, Mats Wichmann wrote: > >>> Linux Foundation still hosts the infrastructure, and the spec sources >>> are on github (https://github.com/LinuxStandardBase/fhs-spec). There >>> are people who will work on moving it forward - if there's interest and >>> participation. As you have seen from the level of activity, there >>> hasn't been much interest since FHS 3 was published four years ago. > >> So, the question is "how to raise interest". And if there is none, does this >> imply that we are stuck with an old specification with no hope of going >> forward? > > I think there is still interest. If you look at the mail archive and > bugzilla, there are people who wanted to have changes or clarifications, > but with the answers they got (choose anything yourself or wait for > the next FHS version), I think most people gave up and declared FHS for > dead.
Mostly those replies reflect a pragmatic approach to reality, basically: (a) Nobody gives the FHS any particular authority to dictate things, it's a collection of existing best practices that people agreed were good to follow. There are no consequences for not following, and no test suite (there were some FHS-compliance tests in the LSB test suite, but of course that's a dead project now). (also see note at end) (b) there's not really not enough momentum to count on FHS to solve a problem you're having *now* so don't raise your expectations too high and make a sensible choice (consider it was about 10 years between 2.3 and 3.0, and it's been four years since then). > I for example was neither aware about the github project nor that people > are looking for participation. Yeah, I see the page that is supposed to reflect the "new" FHS home is quite out of date (https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/lsb/fhs) and never mentions github. Not sure I can edit that any longer, some strange things happened to that wiki. I don't want to overstate the situation. If there are people interested in building consensus on reflecting more recent developments, I know there are a few people happy to work on building a new version. I have trouble letting go of old projects, so I'm in that list (it's certainly not sponsored work; indeed I don't have any paid work at the moment). But as of now there's nobody actively soliciting participation or anything like that. Note: the current FHS has carried forward the idea of being relatively OS-agnostic. There are historical artifacts based on UNIX and *BSD systems. One thing that's been discussed more than once over the years is whether there's value to a more current-Linux-centric version, where maybe some of the historical constraints don't need to be retained? _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
