Status and outlook of LSB and FHS compliance of Fedora.

[Doncho N. Gunchev]

On Friday 04 June 2004 13:00, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> Doncho N. Gunchev wrote:
...
> >     What about *SLOW* migration (if it should happen)? FC3 could have /svr
> > with symlinks to the old /var locations and only some things like 
...
> That was one of the main reasons for not putting now too much into /srv 
> at first. A slow migration will allow things to get sorted out and see 
> if people like the idea in general.

    I did. For now I have 'mount -o bind'-ed these dirs, so nothing breaks.
Probably this is an option? For me it's easi to manage all my web/ftp
content in bouth FC1 and FC2 (I need 3c509 and nv problems solved to
switch to FC2). We have empty /opt where nobody puts anything (probably
RedHat rc.scripts don't add /opt/package/{s,}bin to path), but why there
is no empty /svr with a single readme there - people will notice it?

> This is not a revolution, it's an evolution where the LSB and the FHS 
> try to put a little more sense and structure into a filesystem 
> hierarchie that has grown over the last 20-30 years and which is bound 
> to have some archaic and arguably wrong places where to put stuff.

    Yes, I remember someone from debian asked for comments on changing
the place where all $HOME/.files are stored now not too long ago.

> And belive me, you don't want to sit in my/our chair if we move httpd 
> from /var/www and it breaks only for 1% of our customers. :-)

    I definitely don't :)

-- 
Regards,
  Doncho N. Gunchev    Registered Linux User #291323 at counter.li.org
  GPG-Key-ID: 1024D/DA454F79
  Key fingerprint = 684F 688B C508 C609 0371  5E0F A089 CB15 DA45 4F79