Re: Clarification about section 3.1 (The Root Filesystem, Purpose)

[Daniel Quinlan]

Alfred M Szmidt <ams@kemisten.nu> writes:

> This is sad news.  As the /libexec proposal has been thrown out on
> several occasions I doubt that it will be accepted in the future.
> Also if a new system wants to introduce a new top level directory then
> you will need to add an specific annex for each system.

Well, it is not really a useful directory.  I think most of the
proposals come because GNU software continually wants to use it even
though libexec violates FHS and most Linux distributions use FHS.

> Would it be possible to add an GNU/Hurd specific annex?  That has
> /libexec, /hurd, /servers and similar directories that we might want?

I would welcome it.  A GNU/Hurd annex is quite possible.  We'd need to
rationalize "libexec" and "com", but the others should be relatively
easy.

> Richard Kreuter already started work a GNU/Hurd specific annex for the FHS:
> http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/help-hurd/2002-May/005960.html

I'll take a look.

> I think that it would be easier to just change the rational to say
> that no third party software may introduce new directories in the root
> directory, and that distributions are free to do this.

It might be easier to have no standard at all, but part (most?) of the
purpose of the standard is to achieve similarity between distributions.

If there is more than one GNU/Hurd distribution (always possible with
free software), then you might want to reconsider.

> Side note, I added help-hurd@gnu.org to the CC list as I don't know how
> many Hurd developers read the FHS mailing list.

Okay.  We have had involvement from one GNU/Hurd developer in the past,
but it's been a while (5 or 6 years?) since he was here.

Dan