[fhs-discuss] FHS/LSB Updates

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 02:12:23PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> 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: 

> > > > 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.

Yep, I noticed that as I was quoting it.  That's clearly a bug in the FHS;
even at the time the FHS was being drafted, it was common practice to have
bootloader configuration on a separate boot partition in some cases (or to
have it in the MBR which is not a partition at all) due to various
limitations.

So this is a case where I think the FHS clearly needs to be fixed because
following it as written gives the wrong result.

However, the same can not be said for the handling of /usr.  The proposal
currently on the table for Fedora to make /bin a symlink to /usr/bin is
altogether contrary to the FHS design and discards several invariants that
Kay as udev upstream has decided are not interesting to him, but that are
nevertheless interesting to others who have committed to this standard.

> 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.

In this context, is "we" Fedora, or someone else?  I'm aware of
<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove>, but don't know of its
current status in Fedora or elsewhere.  Is this now considered a
requirement, rather than a proposal?

-- 
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/20111123/7aa646dd/attachment.sig>