On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 10:57:42AM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > * Richard Kreuter writes: > > 6.2.x /hurd : The Hurd servers > > > /hurd contains the Hurd server binaries. Servers with .static appended > > to their name must be statically linked servers, servers without > > .static appended may be dynamically linked servers. > > > The following servers, or symbolic links to servers, are required in > > /hurd. > > > auth[.static] The standard authentication server. > > exec[.static] The standard execution server. > > init[.static] The standard initialization and state maintaining server. > > proc[.static] The standard process server. > > Is there a valid reason why these translators should be static?
Perhaps not. However, consider this argument: (1) the standard should allow/should not forbid any particular statically linked servers in /hurd, (2) statically linked servers in /hurd may be named foo.static, so if the only auth, exec, init, proc servers in /hurd are statically linked, then they may be named auth.static, etc. Seem sensible? > The only translator that I know should be static is the file system > one. What about a file system translator? The system is quite > useless without it. Right. Should we add something like "In addition to the above, at least one file system translator must be found under /hurd, and at least one file system translator in /hurd must be statically linked, in order to boot the Hurd." Comments? > > 6.2.x /servers : Standard location where Hurd servers translate > > > This is the directory Hurd servers translate rendezvous filesystem > > nodes in standard locations, so that other programs can easily find > > them and use server-specific interfaces. > > > /servers/crash The node where the crash server translates. > > /servers/exec The node where the exec sever translates. > > /servers/password The node where the password server translates. > > /servers/proc The node where the process server translates. > > /servers/startup <What's this do?> > > Never heard of /servers/startup.. Where did you get this from? (Can't > find anything in the archives) Thomas Bushnell told me to look through paths.h. My source is old, though. Is this faulty? /* Port rendezvous points are specified by symbols _SERVERS_FOO, the canonical pathname being /servers/foo. */ #define _SERVERS "/servers/" #define _SERVERS_CRASH _SERVERS "crash" #define _SERVERS_EXEC _SERVERS "exec" #define _SERVERS_STARTUP _SERVERS "startup" #define _SERVERS_PROC _SERVERS "proc" #define _SERVERS_PASSWORD _SERVERS "password" > > In addition, all files with names of the form /servers/socket/N, > > where N is a string of digits, are reserved for <somebody who knows > > the score to finish this sentence>. > > /include/hurd/paths.h: > /* Directory containing naming points for socket servers. > Entries are named by the string representing the domain number > in simple decimal (e.g. "/servers/socket/23"). */ I saw that, but didn't know how to word the specification for the naming of the socket server files. > > /servers/socket/pflocal A symbolic link to /servers/socket/1 > > /servers/socket/pfinet A symbolic link to /servers/socket/2. > > Shouldn't this be /servers/socket/local and /servers/socket/inet? Yes. > > 6.2.x /usr/share/info > > 6.2.x /usr/share/man This directory is optional on a GNU system. > > 6.2.x /usr/X11R6 : X Window System, Version 11 Release 6 > > The /usr prefix should be removed... Unclear: if our interpretation is that the FHS specifies where the files should be found, rather than 'how they get there' (which is the reasoning by which we can say that, e.g., we've got a /usr/include directory), then we should say that on a GNU system, it is not mandatory to put a directory at /usr/share/man, right? Alternatively, saying in the context of the larger FHS that /share/man is not required seems off, since there isn't any place in the FHS where /share/man is required, no? Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Help-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
