On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 02:40:55PM -0400, Richard Kreuter wrote: > > It should not forbid putting exectuables that can be used as Hurd > > translators into /bin, btw. > > Should there be an explicit note that server binaries may be located > in /bin, at the present stage of development?
No, I don't think so. It's just that a program can behave as a normal binary and a translator (depending on how it is invoked), this is what makes /hurd/foo --help etc possible. Something to keep in mind for later. There is no server that allows more than --help, --version and in general checking of arguments right now if not invoked as a translator. > > I don't think it should list translators auth, proc etc... the startup > > procedure is defined by the bootstrap filesystem, and the technical details > > can change. > <snip> > > Again, I don't see why the FHS should contain implementation details about > > the current Hurd system, although this level of detail might be what the FHS > > expects to define, so sorry if I am too restrictive. > > Is the objection that the FHS ought not contain implementation details > about the contents of /hurd at all, or that it shouldn't base those > details on the current implementation, or both? I am not really sure. The FHS seems to contain a lot of implementation details already about the system in general. I just think that there are a lot of reasonable assumptions you can make (and things like having auth and proc etc are certainly reasonable) that can be untrue if you do things a bit differently, _without harming interoperability_. For example, the only thing that wants /hurd/exec is the boot command (in fact, this is just another option in the boot command script), and this is a native Hurd command. Everybody else who wants to do something with the exec server talks to /servers/hurd. So I think that we should probably separate between information that is required for other programs to interoperate with the Hurd, and information that is internal to the Hurd system. This is a weak definition that can change over time, of course. > > > > 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? > > > > I think it doesn't exist, although it might in the future. Definitely leave > > it out for now. > > Is there any desire to 'reserve' the location /servers/startup for > some future use? I don't know about /servers/startup in particular, but the Hurd will certainly use more names in /servers in the future. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de _______________________________________________ Help-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
