[Printing-architecture] directory structure / file name conve ntions

Till Kamppeter till.kamppeter at gmx.net
Fri Jul 14 12:56:30 PDT 2006

McDonald, Ira wrote:
> Hi,
> Staying conformant to FHS (required for LSB conformance)
> appears to need some significant thought and modifications
> to our previous FSG/OP concensus (see Wendy Phillips' note
> yesterday).
> For those having trouble finding the authoritative source
> for the FHS spec (I did), below is the home page:
>   http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
> The most recent release is v2.3 (29 January 2004) - there
> are links for PDF, PS, HTML, etc. versions of FHS/2.3 on
> the above web page.
> Does anyone know if there is work-in-progress for a newer
> version of FHS?  Thirty months is a long time in computers.
> I don't think the FSG/OP should recommend a hierarchy std
> for printing that is broken across the 'shipped with system'
> versus 'later vendor packages'.  But I suspect that's just
> what Debian, SUSE, and others want, for security reasons.
> Yuck!
> Comments?

Having one directory would make configuring the security enhancements
(SELinux, AppArmor) easier, but if the appropriate maintainers of the
distros pre-configured them once correctly it should not be a problem.

So we are probably better of to define at least two directories, one for
 drivers to be shipped with the distro and one for distro-independent

Or can we even go with one directory when it is not in /usr? For example
/opt/(open)printing/ppd/ and /opt/(open)printing/drivers/. Note that for
example the KDE and GNOME which ships with SuSE is also in /opt. Or does
SuSE violate the FHS with that?


More information about the Printing-architecture mailing list