On Friday, June 21, 2019 10:17:23 AM Mats Wichmann wrote: > 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 don't really know the best place to say this, and it may have sort of been implied, but, I could see someone creating their own revision, floating it on this mail list for comments, and then publishing somewhere / somehow, maybe even on the place(s) where the current version of the FHS is hosted. And, if the objections get too loud, consider dropping the approach. In general (not that I matter), but I would support an approach like that (I don't guarantee that I would support any specific revisions that you or someone else might make). _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
