Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) compliancy?

James Ralston qralston+ml.inn-workers at
Tue Mar 20 22:19:26 UTC 2001

On 10 Mar 2001, Russ Allbery wrote:

> 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.)

I plan to correct that as well.

> > 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?

Who is the "they" in your sentence?

> > 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.

More information about the inn-workers mailing list