Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles)

[Grant Bowman]

* Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen@dekkers.cx> [020522 13:23]:
> On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 12:50:08AM -0700, Grant Bowman wrote:
> > * Richard Kreuter <kreuter@ausar.rutgers.edu> [020512 22:44]:
> > > The GNU system is special compared to other UNIX-like operating
> > > systems in the way it treats the filesystem namespace. The filesystem
> > > namespace is very flexible, you can do anything with it what you
> > > want. That's why it is reasonable to specify where you should find
> > > directories and files, but not the way those directories and files
> > > should get there.
> > > 
> > > As a rule, distributors who wish to maintain compatibility between
> > > their distributions of GNU/Hurd, GNU/Linux, or other systems may
> > > maintain symbolic links to files whose locations on GNU systems differ
> >                                                       GNU/Hurd?
> > > from their locations on other systems.  This accomodates programs with
> > > "hard-coded" filenames. For example, files that should be found under
> > > /libexec may be symbolic links, or may be the targets of symbolic
> > > links located under /sbin, /bin, and so forth.
> > 
> > Generally, I think GNU alone is ambiguous and shouldn't be used given
> > the climate today.
> 
> A climate is never a reason for not doing the right thing. The only
> reason the name GNU/Hurd exists is because GNU might be ambigous, but
> the paragraph before it already speaks about GNU/Linux so that doesn't
> really matter.  We could say "Hurd-based GNU system" in the first line
> to clear everything up.

As was already discussed in another thread, the right thing in this
instance is effected by the climate.

-- 
-- Grant Bowman                                <grantbow@grantbow.com>