File Systems.

[Jochem Huhmann]

* "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at transmeta.com> wrote:
> Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> > 
> > I see that, but what is the "Linux Standard Base" about then? Is it just
> > about the kernel? Obviously not. So what is that "Linux" in "Linux
> > Standard Base"? IMHO it is what the LSB specifies to be called,
> > recognized and treated as "Linux". And then, everything not embraced by
> > that specification isn't Linux but some 3rd party application and has as
> > such go to /opt if installed by a package or to /usr/local if installed
> > manually by the admin.
> > 
> 
> No distribution vendor is ever going to embrace this philosophy.  It's
> completely needlessly restrictive.

If the distribution vendors won't agree on where "Linux" ends and on
where applications start, and also the LSB won't agree on that, every
single appearance of the term "Linux" in the LSB is undefined and can
well be replaced by "foo". You can't build specifications on
buzzwords. You _can_ turn a buzzword into a defined term, but you have
to define it then.

I do not mean to rant, really. That /opt thing isn't a problem in
itself, it just points at the problem. Requiring to use /opt for
additional software is in no way more restrictive as requiring
package-managed software to not install in /usr/local or requiring
binaries to not install in /etc. In fact the FHS already requires that,
it just doesn't give a hint what "additional" means, because it doesn't
say where "the base" ends. That's the job of the LSB and if it also
doesn't say this, it is meaningless. 



        Jochem

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!