Re: Clarification about section 3.1 (The Root Filesystem, Purpose)

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@pathname.com> writes:
> Alfred M Szmidt <ams@kemisten.nu> writes:
> 
> > This is sad news.  As the /libexec proposal has been thrown out on
> > several occasions I doubt that it will be accepted in the future.
> > Also if a new system wants to introduce a new top level directory then
> > you will need to add an specific annex for each system.
> 
> Well, it is not really a useful directory.  I think most of the
> proposals come because GNU software continually wants to use it even
> though libexec violates FHS and most Linux distributions use FHS.

It is very useful actually.  I won't bother flaming up this topic once
again, but if you want then I can point you to a nice and long thread
about this topic on debian-hurd. :)

> > Would it be possible to add an GNU/Hurd specific annex?  That has
> > /libexec, /hurd, /servers and similar directories that we might want?
> 
> I would welcome it.  A GNU/Hurd annex is quite possible.  We'd need to
> rationalize "libexec" and "com", but the others should be relatively
> easy.

What kind of changes do you have in mind?

> > I think that it would be easier to just change the rational to say
> > that no third party software may introduce new directories in the root
> > directory, and that distributions are free to do this.
> 
> It might be easier to have no standard at all, but part (most?) of the
> purpose of the standard is to achieve similarity between distributions.

I would think that it would be harder to have no standard at all, but
having an standard that lets the distribution extend itself is the
best choice.  Letting an distribution create root level directories
still achieves the goal of being similar between different systems.

> If there is more than one GNU/Hurd distribution (always possible with
> free software), then you might want to reconsider.

I'm not sure, I think that a distribution should have some freedom
when it comes to creating root level directories.  But this is just my
personal opinion.

> > Side note, I added help-hurd@gnu.org to the CC list as I don't know how
> > many Hurd developers read the FHS mailing list.
> 
> Okay.  We have had involvement from one GNU/Hurd developer in the past,
> but it's been a while (5 or 6 years?) since he was here.

That might have been Thomas (Bushnell, BSG) or Roland (McGrath).

Cheers,
-- 
Alfred M. Szmidt