[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:21:37 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.25i

On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 04:20:34PM -0500, Richard Kreuter wrote:
>   Erm, the FHS prohibits "introducing a new subdirectory of the root
> filesystem" (rationale, section 3.1), on grounds having to do with the
> partition containing the host-specific, static boot and recovery
> files.

Right, replace "foo" with "lib/" or "bin/foo" etc.  A lot of
files in /usr fall neatly into the existing directories in /.  Of
course, this is not always true, like with /share.  But we break this
anyway with /hurd and /servers.

> I think that the FHS doesn't consistently and clearly
> distinguish the notions of "filesystem on a store accessible at
> directory <foo>", from "file hierarchy rooted at directory <foo>".
> For example, FHS 3.1 rationale states "Software must never create or
> require special files or subdirectories in the root directory",
> assuming that the contents of the root directory are exactly the
> contents of a single filesystem on a 'root partition'.  I'm not
> convinced that the current /usr -> / link breaks FHS compliance; I
> mean here that the FHS was not constructed with general enough ideas
> about things.  Perhaps not enough of the non-Thomas-Bushnell
> contributors to the FHS weren't sufficiently familiar with the
> potential of the Hurd?  :)

I agree.  There seems to be the strong assumption of a single physical
traditional UNIXish filesystem.  I wouldn't blanko sign the FHS for the
Hurd nowadays.  Before we can really claim FHS compliance, I would guess
that some things in the FHS have to change to cater for the Hurd.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]