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

[Richard Kreuter]

On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 07:37:01PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 01:09:08PM -0400, Richard Kreuter wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 10:57:42AM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:

> > (2) statically linked servers in /hurd may be named foo.static, so
> > if the only auth, exec, init, proc servers in /hurd are statically
> > linked, then they may be named auth.static, etc.  Seem sensible?
>
> I don't know what the above [.static] really means.  

  FHS 1.2:

  'Optional components of filenames are enclosed in "[" and "]"'

> It should not forbid putting exectuables that can be used as Hurd
> translators into /bin, btw.

Should there be an explicit note that server binaries may be located
in /bin, at the present stage of development?

> I don't think it should list translators auth, proc etc...  the startup
> procedure is defined by the bootstrap filesystem, and the technical details
> can change.
<snip>
> Again, I don't see why the FHS should contain implementation details about
> the current Hurd system, although this level of detail might be what the FHS
> expects to define, so sorry if I am too restrictive.

Is the objection that the FHS ought not contain implementation details
about the contents of /hurd at all, or that it shouldn't base those
details on the current implementation, or both?

Either way, if there are no objections, I'll excise the requirements
under /hurd for now.

> However, please consider that the bootstrap filesystem (which is the only
> file beside the kernel that needs to be linked statically) is loaded by
> GRUB.  If you have ext2fs.static on a boot disk, CD Rom or network storage,
> you don't need one in the filesystem at run time at all.

Good point.

> > > Never heard of /servers/startup.. Where did you get this from? (Can't
> > > find anything in the archives)
> > 
> >   Thomas Bushnell told me to look through paths.h.  My source is old,
> > though.  Is this faulty?
> 
> I think it doesn't exist, although it might in the future.  Definitely leave
> it out for now.  

Is there any desire to 'reserve' the location /servers/startup for
some future use?

Thanks,
Richard