Re: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) and NetBSD

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 04:45:03PM +0100, jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> 
> We can't really blame them for trying. While strict adherence to the
> (L)FHS is unlikely for all kinds of Linux distros and Unix
> derivatives, I still think we should be part of the process. Not to
> push FHS everywhere in NetBSD, but just to know what is happening on
> the other side world, or even push solutions in case we already took
> a decision regarding where goes what in hier(7).

Well, perhaps one can't blame "them" for trying *now*.  But do keep in
mind that when this "standard" was propagated, decades of precedent
(Unix has had a hier(7) manual page for that long!) appear to have been
ignored once again with no solicitation of parties outside Linux for
comment -- just the usual "Linux does it this way, let's get a standard
that says everyone should."

I cannot really see what could be done to fix that now; there are a
huge number of filesystem layouts in use across Unix variants and if
it is "standardized" multiple ways, the standard is not really going
to be very useful.  It's not reasonable to expect Linux to whack around
its standard layout to match ours, or Solaris', or... you get the idea,
and certainly not in the opposite direction either.  So what's to be done?

One constructive thing that could be done would be to adjust the language
of the "standard" to point out that it is informative not normative, that
its scope is strictly limited to Linux systems, and to direct readers to
sources like hier(7) which have documented existing Unix practice for much
longer than the "standard" has existed.

Heaven forfend that this "standard" were to be -- for example -- incorporated
by reference into some larger standard to which we _did_ want to conform.
Let's just please avoid that!

Thor