[lsb-discuss] tux assistant idea

rahul at reno.cis.upenn.edu rahul at reno.cis.upenn.edu
Tue Feb 4 09:14:16 PST 2003


Robert,
See
http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.3.0/gLSB/gLSB/execenvfhs.html

LSB points to FHS. My point (with muchos hindsight, and not really the right time to bring it up, but the tux-assistent thread made me think of it) is that
maybe it ought to have been even more selective than the FHS already is. Again,
my issue is not with FHS, but the practises around it..so that this is more
a markets issue than a standards issue. But still, in FHS, directories like
/usr lib are like the pigs in Animal farm: All animals are equal, but some
 animals are more equal than others :-)

Anyway, this discussion is mostly academic and tangential..the market will
decide...
rahul

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:27:28AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2003, George Kraft wrote:
> 
> > Currently, we have over a dozen LSB certified systems following the
> > FHS. 
> 
> i have to ask yet again -- what is the deal with FHS?  nothing has
> changed at pathname.com in months.  has this all been subsumed
> under the LSB?  can anyone explain this?
> 
> rday
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at freestandards.org
> http://freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss




More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list