[fhs-discuss] FHS/LSB Updates

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 08:33:36PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I have seen discussion about removing /usr/bin completely and
> putting everything on /usr.  There are multiple distributions that
> today say that they don't support a separate (or at least a remote)
> /usr partition.

Yes, there are.  These distributions have effectively decided to not support
the FHS.

That's their right, but we shouldn't change the FHS every time a
distribution decides it's too much work to comply with a standard.

> What the FHS/LSB should be about is to not only set a standard about
> what facilities are available for a product today, but to provide a
> roadmap to what will be available in the future.  This means that
> programs that are of marginal use should be deprecated.

The FHS and LSB are not the same thing.  This is, in fact, the wrong list on
which to discuss the LSB.

The FHS has always been about defining a standard, cross-platform filesystem
layout based on a handful of simple principles such that distributions,
admins, and providers of third-party software all know what to expect from a
compliant system.  As such, the cost of changing the spec to reverse
existing rules is high for everyone involved, and should only be entertained
when those rules give an unambiguously *wrong* result.

The LSB, on the other hand, is entirely about providing a platform to ISVs,
and does need to be responsive to their real needs.

> In the days when memory is measured in GB and disk in TB, things
> like vi in /bin and vim in /usr/bin is nonsensical.

What's your point?  Are you arguing that the LSB should include vim?  If you
think vim is reasonable to rely on, there's no reason not to also include
ed/at/batch, which are all much smaller than vim.

> The same can be said for the differences between dash and bash.

Only by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

> I don't know of any *programs* that rely on ed/at/batch.  Sure users
> can and do use them, but do they need to be part of a standard?

You've already been given an example of a third-party package that uses at.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/fhs-discuss/attachments/20111117/f3896088/attachment.sig>