[fhs-discuss] FHS/LSB Updates

[Bill Nottingham]

Steve Langasek (vorlon at debian.org) said: 
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 04:36:25PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Steve Langasek (vorlon at debian.org) said: 
> > > 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.
> 
> > I'll bite. How is /bin as a symlink invalid in the FHS? The spec
> > specifically allows it.
> 
> FHS chapter 3:
> 
>   * To boot a system, enough must be present on the root partition to mount
>     other filesystems. This includes utilities, configuration, boot loader
>     information, and other essential start-up data. /usr, /opt, and /var are
>     designed such that they may be located on other partitions or
>     filesystems.

Well, we're already violating that in most distributions where /boot is
allowed to be separate. Aside from that point, is there anything that
prevents updating this section? For example, the references to restoring from
potential backups to floppies...

We've already designed a requirement where, in cases where /usr may be
separate, or not local, the initramfs must contain all the tools to properly
mount such filesystems. At that point, the distinction of the 'root'
filesystem being the initramfs could be a point to discuss.

Bill