Opened 21 years ago
Closed 20 years ago
#460 closed enhancement (fixed)
LFS FHS Compliance
| Reported by: | Owned by: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | Book | Version: | CVS |
| Severity: | minor | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | pinskia@… |
Description
in chapter 6 there are two sets of instructions (FHS & non FHS)for findutils and sh-utils: i propose that we drop the non-FHS instructions in favour of the FHS instructions (unless there is a really good reason for keeping both). having two sets of instructions is just plain confusing.
Gerard what do you think about this?
Change History (7)
comment:1 by , 21 years ago
comment:2 by , 21 years ago
| Priority: | lowest → normal |
|---|
I've considered it and I think it will be good to do so. Even if we don't all agree on a standard, it's still good to comply to it to keep up with the trying to be universal amongst different Linux.
Before somebody actually takes on this bug by making the changes, first start a discussion on lfs-dev to inform people of this and see what others think.
comment:3 by , 21 years ago
Let me rephrase that:
At some points in the book we have the LFS-way of installing a package and an FHS-way. I think it's safe to say that the FHS-way is a better choice to promote uniformity.
An idea could be to simply make the FHS alternatives the main installation method and forego the current installation method. It simply involves adding a symlink (sh-utils), fixing a path to a file that should be writable (util-linux) and similar things.
But let's discuss each of these changes individually for all the packages on the lfs-dev mailinglist. Maybe there are good reasons to keep the FHS instructions as an alternative.
comment:4 by , 20 years ago
FHS just sucks, look at debain for how painful it is now. Also you cannot really have a true GNU system without GNUStep and that should have a /System, a /Local, and /Network but that violates FHS.
comment:5 by , 20 years ago
| Cc: | added |
|---|
comment:6 by , 20 years ago
Please don't troll Bugzilla. GNUstep is not necessary for LFS, we aren't even aiming to create a GNU system. This bug is purely intended to track FHS compliance in LFS.
comment:7 by , 20 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
Current instructions should follow FHS pretty closely - if there are additional concerns regarding FHS compliance, we can address those on a case by case basis.
What I think? I think some of the FHS suggestions plain suck and I don't want people to think that it's the only right thing to do. Jokingly we've said LFS follows the "LFS-FHS" guidelines and where it conflicts with the 'real' FHS we point that out. But fair is fair, I'll give it some thought and let you guys know soon what'll happen.