Hi,
> > Given that it describes a particular file hierarchy conventionally
> > used only by Linux systems from major Linux distributors, how would
> > you expect that to be the case?
>
> From the opening paragraph of the standard:
>
> "This standard consists of a set of requirements and guidelines for file
> and directory placement under UNIX-like operating systems. The
> guidelines are intended to support interoperability of applications,
> system administration tools, development tools, and scripts as well as
> greater uniformity of documentation for these systems."
>
> My goal is to determine if this is actually true, or if it is only
> relevant to Linux, as you suggest. I don't want to exclude you (and the
> other BSD systems, and the other UNIXes) without making sure.
far from being away a *BSD- or Linux-developer, my opinion:
I don't think you can reach this uniformity without having only a very small
standard.
Adding BSDs to the FHS would need various modifications which just do not
apply to Linux-systems. Just, for example:
* /var/db is rarely used on Linuxes, on BSDs the packaging informations are
stored there, /var/lib is rather used on Linux.
* /boot is not the place to store boot-files, the configuration and kernels
on NetBSD lie partially in /.
* /rescue for the rescue-binaries is not even mentioned in the FHS, as
is /exports for NFS-exports, which is not a standard, but often used.
* /var/cron is specified as 'reserved' but historical, though used on BSDs
for cron.
Thus, even the directories in the standard and not put into the appendix are
platform-specific and not applicable to all.
So, when trying to be a standard for *all* Unixes, there would be three ways:
1. Be as generic as possible and include only minimal specifications.
This would be an immutable standard, as the only generics of all Unixes
are historical. This is not what the FHS is intended for and would rather
suit on a hobbyist page.
2. Include all flavours for all Unixes and make a big standard.
Taking this way, you would have plenty of directories considered 'used
only on system X, Y and Z', making the standard large and unreadable if
you want information about a specific distribution, thus making the
standard rather informational than a specification.
3. Find a way between 1. and 2., considering only the majororities.
When do you consider a Unix big enough to be part of the standard? This is
a NetBSD-mailing list, which has a usage of <10% considering only BSDs,
now think about DragonFly.
Additionally, all Unixes except Linux have a more closed development with
only one community to consider, making it easier to introduce new
hierarchies, whilst the term Linux incorporates hundreds of distributions and
flavours how to do things.
This is just my view as a BSD- and Linux-user, not even thinking of Solaris
and all other active Unix-derivatives.
Therefore, I think, making the FHS a standard for all Unixes is not possible
nor wanted.
What I would rather think of would be explicit mentioning that the FHS as
currently published is for Linuxes ('LFHS'), merging Chapter 6 into the
standard itself. Perhaps, one could extract an informal smaller standard
which is applicable to more systems, but as I said, this would rather fit on
a hobbyist page than on a standard which is meant to be stating a standard,
not informing about it.
Regards, Julian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature