On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 04:20:34PM -0500, Richard Kreuter wrote: > Erm, the FHS prohibits "introducing a new subdirectory of the root > filesystem" (rationale, section 3.1), on grounds having to do with the > partition containing the host-specific, static boot and recovery > files.
Right, replace "foo" with "lib/libfoo.so" or "bin/foo" etc. A lot of files in /usr fall neatly into the existing directories in /. Of course, this is not always true, like with /share. But we break this anyway with /hurd and /servers. > I think that the FHS doesn't consistently and clearly > distinguish the notions of "filesystem on a store accessible at > directory <foo>", from "file hierarchy rooted at directory <foo>". > For example, FHS 3.1 rationale states "Software must never create or > require special files or subdirectories in the root directory", > assuming that the contents of the root directory are exactly the > contents of a single filesystem on a 'root partition'. I'm not > convinced that the current /usr -> / link breaks FHS compliance; I > mean here that the FHS was not constructed with general enough ideas > about things. Perhaps not enough of the non-Thomas-Bushnell > contributors to the FHS weren't sufficiently familiar with the > potential of the Hurd? :) I agree. There seems to be the strong assumption of a single physical traditional UNIXish filesystem. I wouldn't blanko sign the FHS for the Hurd nowadays. Before we can really claim FHS compliance, I would guess that some things in the FHS have to change to cater for the Hurd. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ Help-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
