[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles)
From: |
Jeroen Dekkers |
Subject: |
Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles) |
Date: |
Sun, 17 Mar 2002 21:36:02 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.27i |
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 03:31:16PM -0500, Richard Kreuter wrote:
> > 6.2 GNU
> >
> > This is the annex for the GNU operating system.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 6.2.x / : The Root Filesystem
> >
> > It's allowed to create a new subdirectory of the root filesystem by
> > the distribution creator or user.
> >
> How about the following:
>
> "On a GNU system, the contents of a directory listing need not
> reside on a single volume; therefore directories may be created in the
> root directory of a system, though the size of the bootstrap
> filesystem should be kept to a minimum."
I don't see why that should be. If somebody wants to have everything
on one partition he should just do that. The bootstrap filesystem can
also be a cd-rom or DVD for example, which are quite big.
> I assume I'm using the term 'bootstrap filesystem' correctly here.
> Is this term acceptable for policy use?
I'm not sure it's better than "root filesystem".
> > /hurd contains the Hurd server binaries. Servers with .static appended
> > to their name must be statically linked servers, servers without
> > .static appended should be dynamic linked servers.
>
> Is this the correct specification? That is: .static can be used to
> indicate staticaly linked binaries, while the lack of .static need not
> imply dynamic linkage.
Yes, that was my meaning. I don't see why static linked binaries must
have .static, it's only a good practice to do so.
> Also, perhaps the first line should read, "/hurd contains the Hurd
> server binaries provided by the distributor" (to distinguish these
> from third-party Hurd servers, when there are some). Say, the /hurd
> directory should contain only 'trusted' servers, or somesuch.
I think all server binaries should go in /hurd.
> > 6.2.x /usr/X11R6 : X Window System, Version 11 Release 6
> >
> > This directory should not be used. Instead the X Window System should
> > be placed in /usr.
>
> I thought it was: 'for each directory <foo> in X11R6, the contents
> of that directory should be placed in /usr/<foo>/X11, if /usr/foo
> exists when X is not installed, or /usr, if /usr/foo doesn't exist.'
> This is Debian policy for non-imake built systems; should GNU adopt
> it?
Binaries, libraries and manpages should just go in /usr/bin, /usr/lib
and /usr/man. Only for include it should be /usr/include/X11 to make
#include <X11/foo.h> possible. Debian policy should do what the FHS
says, not the other way around.
Jeroen Dekkers
--
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen@openprojects
pgpx3Jwq9qf95.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), (continued)
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/03/16
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/17
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Richard Kreuter, 2002/03/17
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/17
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/03/17
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/17
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Kenneth Stailey, 2002/03/17
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/03/17
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/17
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Richard Kreuter, 2002/03/17
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles),
Jeroen Dekkers <=
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Richard Kreuter, 2002/03/17
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/17
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Richard Kreuter, 2002/03/18
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/18
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Richard Kreuter, 2002/03/18
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/18
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/03/18
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/18
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/03/18
- Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles), Jeroen Dekkers, 2002/03/18