Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) compliancy?

James Ralston qralston+ml.inn-workers at andrew.cmu.edu
Fri Aug 11 00:33:03 UTC 2000


I've been subscribed to this list for quite a while, and as well as I
can remember, this topic hasn't come up.

Has anyone put any thought towards whether making the INN distribution
compliant with version 2.1 of the FHS would be a good thing?

Personally, I think this is the direction INN should go.  The "build
on the target machine and just splatter everything into /usr/local"
method of software deployment/administration is becoming more and more
a thing of the past.  Virtually all modern unix operating systems
employ some form of package management schemes.  If INN were to
conform with the FHS, it would make it much more straightforward to
build and deploy INN under a package management scheme.

I don't think this would require a vast number of changes to INN.  A
fair number of the directories could just be renamed--for example,
instead of placing configuration files in /usr/local/etc, they would
go in /etc/inn instead.  Some other directories would require more
work, though--in particular, the files (and subdirectories) that
currently go in /usr/local/bin would need to be broken up and
distributed among /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, and /usr/lib/inn.

Thoughts?

Those of you who might be unfamiliar with the FHS project can check
out:

    http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
    http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.1.pdf.gz

-- 
James Ralston, Information Technology
Software Engineering Institute
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA




More information about the inn-workers mailing list