Re: Hurd FS hierarchy in FHS.

[Gerhard Muntingh]

(yes I've read the entire thread by now :)

On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 04:10:50PM -0400, Richard Kreuter wrote:
> annex, and even that there are reasons not to introduce any such
> addition, but there is a straightforward reason to include one: Debian
> wants to comply with the FHS, and there are benefits to participating
> in Debian.

That's not a reason to include an annex.  The FHS specifies
a consistent environment for POSIX software.  It's should
not contain OS specific contents (IMO).

A better solution would be to:

1) Change your own software, and if that's not possible:
2) Make a proposal for the FHS to make it more general.
 
It's just like GNU/Hurd patches for packages.  It's the
art to make them independend of platform, _not_ to add
support for GNU/Hurd.


>  It's not there to document, but define a specification to which a

agree.


> > How about making the GNU FHS an extension to the current
> > (LSB) FHS.
> 
>   The LSB includes the FHS as part of its specification.  Quoting the
> LSB, Chapter 17:
> 
> An LSB conforming system must adhere to the FHS 2.2.

GNU/Hurd is not an LSB conforming system.  It doesn't want
to be.  LSB is very inflexible. (it sucks IMO).  The big
difference between LSB and FHS, is that FHS tries to be
a timeless standard.  LSB gets out of date soon.

The FHS provides a nice flexible standard across a WIDE range
of OSes.  To make GNU/Hurd support FHS,  FHS should just be
a little _more_ flexible.

To add that flexibility, send patches to the FHS-discuss list.
People over there are generally very helpfull in explaining
why something is the way it is.

With shadowfs, and a few small patches to the FHS, GNU/Hurd
can easily support FHS.


Gerhard.