Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) compliancy?

Brandon Hume hume at Den.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca
Fri Aug 11 01:04:41 UTC 2000


> Personally, I think this is the direction INN should go.  The "build
> on the target machine and just splatter everything into /usr/local"

INN doesn't just 'splatter' all over /usr/local.  It packs itself quite neatly
into /usr/local/news with the default prefix.  I find this very useful because
INN is the kind of application that dominates the entire machine, and tends to
survive several iterations of the underlying hardware and OS.  When I do my
backups, I carefully preserve the one directory, not dozens scattered all over
the filesystem.

Systems like Oracle and Sybase (major machine-dominating applications) do the
same thing, which is not unreasonable, since at a philisophical level they do
the same thing.

> employ some form of package management schemes.  If INN were to
> conform with the FHS, it would make it much more straightforward to

Isn't the FHS primarily a Linux activity?

> currently go in /usr/local/bin would need to be broken up and
> distributed among /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, and /usr/lib/inn.

This is more what I'd call 'splattering' than a single subdir.  I have big
issues with third party software that throws itself in among the core OS.
I have /usr/local and /opt for that purpose.  Without being too pointed...
Linux is the only Unix-like OS I know of that blurs the line between OS and
application to such a degree.

-- 
Brandon Hume    - hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
                       -> Solaris Snob and general NOCMonkey



More information about the inn-workers mailing list