FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-16-2009, 09:14 AM
Josselin Mouette
 
Default Is the FHS dead ?

Hi,

I wanted to discuss the python-support directory tree location (and
similar issues) with the FHS maintainers, however it occurred to me that
the mailing list is completely dead, and the standard doesn’t seem very
alive either. The last release was 5 years ago, and is starting to look
slightly outdated.

Is there a standards body still interested in moving forward with
filesystem layout discussions? If not, shouldn’t we start our own
standard?

--
.'`. Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and
`- told that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.
 
Old 02-16-2009, 11:14 AM
Patrick Schoenfeld
 
Default Is the FHS dead ?

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:14:52AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I wanted to discuss the python-support directory tree location (and
> similar issues) with the FHS maintainers, however it occurred to me that
> the mailing list is completely dead, and the standard doesn’t seem very
> alive either. The last release was 5 years ago, and is starting to look
> slightly outdated.

there is no post from you on the mailinglist in the last six months?
But apart from this is looks quiet dead, yeah. Did you try contacting
persons who are personally involved with FHS? For example the mentioned
editors ("The process is overseen by FHS editors, Rusty Russell, Daniel
Quinlan, and Christopher Yeoh.")?

> Is there a standards body still interested in moving forward with
> filesystem layout discussions? If not, shouldn’t we start our own
> standard?

I'm not sure if "start our own standard" is a good idea. We already have
our own standards and the FHS is more like a distribution-independent
standard, which it should stay. Defining our own standards wouldn't
neccessarily mean that other distributions adopt it. So if we really
start something on our own we should encourage other distributions to
take a part from the beginning.

Best Regards,
Patrick
 
Old 02-16-2009, 01:20 PM
Matthew Johnson
 
Default Is the FHS dead ?

On Mon Feb 16 13:14, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Is there a standards body still interested in moving forward with
> > filesystem layout discussions? If not, shouldn’t we start our own
> > standard?
>
> I'm not sure if "start our own standard" is a good idea. We already have
> our own standards and the FHS is more like a distribution-independent
> standard, which it should stay. Defining our own standards wouldn't
> neccessarily mean that other distributions adopt it. So if we really
> start something on our own we should encourage other distributions to
> take a part from the beginning.

the FHS should certainly continue to exist and be coordinated between
distros though. I agree that if it needs taking over we should do so in
cooperation with the other big distros.

Matt

--
Matthew Johnson
 
Old 02-16-2009, 01:52 PM
Ron Johnson
 
Default Is the FHS dead ?

On 02/16/2009 04:14 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:

Hi,

I wanted to discuss the python-support directory tree location (and
similar issues) with the FHS maintainers, however it occurred to me that
the mailing list is completely dead, and the standard doesn’t seem very
alive either. The last release was 5 years ago, and is starting to look
slightly outdated.

Is there a standards body still interested in moving forward with
filesystem layout discussions? If not, shouldn’t we start our own
standard?



Has, maybe, it been merged into the LSB?

http://www.opengroup.org/testing/lsb-fhs/
Present Status

LSB-FHS2.3 merged into LSB 2.0 runtime tests.

This test suite is now being maintained in the LSB CVS tree see
http://www.linuxbase.org/test/

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-16-2009, 02:14 PM
Josselin Mouette
 
Default Is the FHS dead ?

Le lundi 16 février 2009 * 14:20 +0000, Matthew Johnson a écrit :
> the FHS should certainly continue to exist and be coordinated between
> distros though. I agree that if it needs taking over we should do so in
> cooperation with the other big distros.

Certainly. It’s just that someone needs to start the work.

--
.'`. Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and
`- told that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.
 
Old 02-16-2009, 03:08 PM
Teodor
 
Default Is the FHS dead ?

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:
> Le lundi 16 fvrier 2009 14:20 +0000, Matthew Johnson a crit :
>> the FHS should certainly continue to exist and be coordinated between
>> distros though. I agree that if it needs taking over we should do so in
>> cooperation with the other big distros.
>
> Certainly. It's just that someone needs to start the work.

There is no need to create another standard, FHS is being continued in
the LSB project at linuxfoundation.org / freestandards.org. FHS was
the starting point for LSB.
Even if the LSB project has been criticized by the Debian project,
this seems to become the "the facto" file hierarchy standard for
Linux. It is not perfect, but is being adopted by the majority of
Linux distros.

Thanks


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-16-2009, 03:17 PM
Josselin Mouette
 
Default Is the FHS dead ?

Le lundi 16 février 2009 * 18:08 +0200, Teodor a écrit :
> There is no need to create another standard, FHS is being continued in
> the LSB project at linuxfoundation.org / freestandards.org. FHS was
> the starting point for LSB.
> Even if the LSB project has been criticized by the Debian project,
> this seems to become the "the facto" file hierarchy standard for
> Linux. It is not perfect, but is being adopted by the majority of
> Linux distros.

Nevertheless, the Linux Foundation hasn’t made evolve the standard for 5
years. Where could we start if we want the standard to evolve?

Currently, the discussion is clearly happening at other levels. If you
look at the recent cgroups discussion for example, it will clearly be
decided at the distribution level, without any kind of standardization.

--
.'`. Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and
`- told that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.
 
Old 02-17-2009, 05:41 AM
Giacomo Catenazzi
 
Default Is the FHS dead ?

Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 16 février 2009 * 18:08 +0200, Teodor a écrit :
>> There is no need to create another standard, FHS is being continued in
>> the LSB project at linuxfoundation.org / freestandards.org. FHS was
>> the starting point for LSB.
>> Even if the LSB project has been criticized by the Debian project,
>> this seems to become the "the facto" file hierarchy standard for
>> Linux. It is not perfect, but is being adopted by the majority of
>> Linux distros.
>
> Nevertheless, the Linux Foundation hasn’t made evolve the standard for 5
> years. Where could we start if we want the standard to evolve?
>
> Currently, the discussion is clearly happening at other levels. If you
> look at the recent cgroups discussion for example, it will clearly be
> decided at the distribution level, without any kind of standardization.

Is not this the right thing to do?

Standards should be most frozen as possible. I don't find a lot of
think that need to be added.

Also for cgroups, I really hope that proposal come from distributions
(and common usage). Only after one distribution use it, it need to
be standardized. IMHO standards should come from bottom.
BTW, You know, there are a lot of details and possible
problems, so better to wait, not to have a wrong standardization,
which cause more problem to correct.

Anyway, I think that we must give new live to fhs mailing list
(also for discussion, not only for proposal).

ciao
cate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-17-2009, 07:51 AM
Josselin Mouette
 
Default Is the FHS dead ?

Le mardi 17 février 2009 * 07:41 +0100, Giacomo Catenazzi a écrit :
> > Currently, the discussion is clearly happening at other levels. If you
> > look at the recent cgroups discussion for example, it will clearly be
> > decided at the distribution level, without any kind of standardization.
>
> Is not this the right thing to do?
>
> Standards should be most frozen as possible. I don't find a lot of
> think that need to be added.

Currently I see at least a clear need to add /sys, and another one to
allow pure 64bit hierarchies.

> Also for cgroups, I really hope that proposal come from distributions
> (and common usage). Only after one distribution use it, it need to
> be standardized. IMHO standards should come from bottom.

I’m not saying that something like cgroups should be directly written in
stone to the standard. However the discussion should have taken place at
a cross-distribution level so that it could be standardized later, if
needed.

> Anyway, I think that we must give new live to fhs mailing list
> (also for discussion, not only for proposal).

Do you really want to subscribe to a list that only ships 50 spams/month
currently?

--
.'`. Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told
`- me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.
 
Old 02-18-2009, 09:29 AM
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi"
 
Default Is the FHS dead ?

Josselin Mouette wrote:

Le mardi 17 février 2009 * 07:41 +0100, Giacomo Catenazzi a écrit :

Also for cgroups, I really hope that proposal come from distributions
(and common usage). Only after one distribution use it, it need to
be standardized. IMHO standards should come from bottom.


I’m not saying that something like cgroups should be directly written in
stone to the standard. However the discussion should have taken place at
a cross-distribution level so that it could be standardized later, if
needed.


Which btw it was done in debian-devel/linux-kernel, involving the major distributions




Anyway, I think that we must give new live to fhs mailing list
(also for discussion, not only for proposal).


Do you really want to subscribe to a list that only ships 50 spams/month
currently?


ok. This is a huge problem. Maybe you should ask to the kernel mailing list +
the FHS maintainers, to move the list in kernel.org or other less spam attractive
places.

BTW I had also other though about the issue, and I think we need a
"Debian FHS", which should reference the main FHS, but it should
precise better some issues:
- Debian specific location for package management (houside scope of FHS)
- stricter rules, where FHS is too liberal (cgi, python,...)
- specify stricter rules about attributes:
- temporary partitions (see recent debian-policy discussion about
/var/run on tmpfs)
- which zone could be: ro, nodev, nosetuid, noexec
- which directories should not be symlinks
(there are some policy requirement about relative symlink)
- transitions: package maintainers IMHO should still allow
old directories (but not create new think in wrong places),
- things not yet in FHS

I think centralizing such document would be nice.

ciao
cate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:10 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org