Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) compliancy?

[Russ Allbery]

James Ralston <qralston+ml.inn-workers at andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> I am indeed working on this, as I need to upgrade from INN 2.2.2 to INN
> 2.3.1, and I'm going to set up things for (optional) FHS compliance.
> When I'm done with that, I'll tweak the patches for the CURRENT tree (it
> shouldn't take much effort) and send 'em in.

Excellent, thank you!

> Well, for the distros that use RPM, recent verions of RPM encapsulate
> the FHS-specific stuff in macros.

Yeah, but we have a wider variety of directories than those macros account
for; we have things like docdir as well.  (We also don't correctly use
some things like mandir; I'd welcome patches to fix that or I'll get to it
at some point.)

> The values of the various directories are taken from per-platform
> macro files.  Under Red Hat 7.0, they are:

I assume that they're converging towards something that we can support and
that we don't need to continue to support the older versions?

> The tactic I plan to take is to put all of the directory information
> above in configure, and have --enable-fhs-compliance cause configure to
> build the default paths for things based on the FHS directories and
> defaults instead of the existing defaults.

That sounds good to me.

> That way, someone building an RPM can just use the %configure macro,
> which should do exactly the right thing,

I think this will be hard to do, since the %configure macro isn't going to
know about our other directories that don't fit neatly into the list of
directories in a typical autoconf project.  The db files and the article
spool in particular don't map to any of the standard autoconf options.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>