items in LIBDIR (related to FHS patch)

James Ralston qralston+ml.inn-workers at
Wed Apr 25 04:13:07 UTC 2001

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Marco d'Itri wrote:

> I don't think moving the binaries is worth the trouble.

I'm tempted to agree, simply because it will require some effort, but
in the end, I'd prefer not to partially implement FHS support.  If
it's going to be done, it should be done correctly.

> BTW, I belive the reference to shell scripts it's about shell
> scripts written by users, not about scripts which are parts of a
> package.  Otherwise I could not see the point of considering
> different things the programs executed by binary programs and shell
> scripts.

Yes; from the discussion on the fhs-list, I believe that was the
intent as well.

> > Nowhere in INSTALL is it documented that files are renamed from
> > TMPDIR to SPOOLDIR/incoming.  I just made a quick scan of
> > inn-CURRENT, and I didn't spot any obvious renames out of TMPDIR.
> > Is this actually still the case?
> Yes, it is.

Then this should be clearly documented in INSTALL.  If no one gets
around to doing that before I finish the FHS patch, I'll document it.

That does make it easier to determine DBDIR and TMPDIR, though.


(Meaning, if no other directories are going to be under /var/lib/news,
then /var/lib/news/db can be collapsed to simply /var/lib/news.)

> I don't think so. /var/lib is usually a small file system which is
> backed up, I would not put temp files here. A temp file is nearest
> to the /var/spool definition.

I dunno if I agree with that, but if TMPDIR needs to be on the same
filesystem as SPOOLDIR, then it doesn't matter...

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

More information about the inn-workers mailing list