On 5/19/20 2:25 PM, Akira Urushibata via lfs-dev wrote:
Is there any problem with making a new directory at the filesystem
base level?
In theory there could be a distribution which already has a /tool
directory. But I have never heard of that.
What alternatives are there to /tool ? If /tool is so abhored, why
not try /usr/local instead ? What happens when you do that?
The /usr/local directory must be empty for this to work and you
shouldn't do anything other than build LFS on this system. But if
you dislike /tool , it should be worth a try.
We use /tools -> /mnt/lfs/tools as a location for creating the temporary
tools used to build the system in Chapter 6. In that way files like
/tools/bin/make can be found via the identical path from the host and
from within chroot. When rebooting the completed system, the host's
/mnt/lfs/tools becomes a directory, /tools, not a symlink, but is not used.
The FHS says that "*distributions* should not create new directories in
the root hierarchy without extremely careful consideration of the
consequences including for application portability."
LFS is not designed to be a distribution although many treat it that
way. Your distro, your rules.
Additionally, there is nothing preventing an LFS user from deleting or
moving /tools from the host any time after Chapter 6. /tools and
/mnt/lfs/tools are really only temporary constructs.
I'll note that I have several non-FHS anointed entries in /: /build,
/jhalfs, lost+found, and /sources. Actually lost+found is almost always
found for all distributions but is not mentioned in the FHS.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
