Re: Arklinux and FHS and LSB

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 09 July 2004 12:14 pm, you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, 9. Juli 2004 09:43 schrieb Luke Hebert:
> > Err ?, To my knowledege /mnt is the standard Location to mount Removeable
> > media and user mount points. Every Distrobution I have used in the last
> > few months use that location. So Im a bit confused here.
>
> As I said, "historical". ;-)
>
> Look at the FHS spec:
>
> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#MEDIAMOUNTPOINT
>
> IMHO other distributions already switched to this scheme. :-)
>
> Maybe, I simply used to have /mnt to temporarily mount other filesystems.
>
> Hendrik
>
> > Hendrik Muhs wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am currently switching from another Linux Distribution to Ark Linux.
> > >
> > > I do not like the non-standard filesystem hierarchy. For example: Is
> > > there any reason why cdrom, floppy, etc. is under /mnt ?
> > >
> > > Or does this only have historical reasons (old Redhat standard) ?
> > >
> > > I can look into this stuff and trying to get Ark Linux  closer to
> > > standards like FHS (Filesystem hierarchy standard) and maybe LSB (Linux
> > > Standard Base).
> > >
> > > (I am not an arklinux developer yet, so I would begin with making
> > > patches and send it to the responsible people)
> > >
> > > But before I waste my time, I this is ok for you? Or do you have other
> > > plans?
> > >
> > > Sincerly,
> > >
> > > Hendrik
> > > P.S. sorry for my bad english

As the distribution's pedantic (and more than a little policy happy at times)
standards guy, I think I should weigh in on this.

First, most distributions are NOT moving to this scheme since it makes no
sense for a few reasons:

	1 historical
	2 Adds a new top level directory
	3 Is based on Solaris FS heirachy, whereas /mnt/<foo> is from the far more
		sane BSD dir structure.

Additionally, the LSB is in many ways flawed, since it intends to perpetuate
flawed UNIX paradigms that need to die. One of the goals of Ark Linux is, if
it doesn't make logical sense to the home / office end user, eliminate or
change it. There are a number of cases where this applies, however it will
take manpower to make those changes to the mindset of old UNIX geeks. Besides
if the FHS and LSB were taken as canon 90% of GNOME would be marked as
uncompliant due to the mess it makes of the directories that it is put in.

Finally, remember, LSB 2.0 is still under heavy scrutiny. MDK and RH both are
oppsed to some of the changes that the upcoming version of LSB is requiring.
For instance, MDK has stated that they _will not_ move up to X.org or XFree86
4.4 (the former due to it's stability and compatibility, the later due to the
knee jerk reaction to the license change) and will be remaining on the 4.3.0
branch for a while. However, LSB 2.0 requires X.org or 4.4 for full
compliance.

- --
Gary L. Greene, Jr.
Sent from uriel.tolharadyne.net
 09:45:16 up 1 day,  1:57,  3 users,  load average: 0.09, 0.05, 0.06
============================================================
Volunteer developer for the Ark Linux Project
 check out http://www.arklinux.org/ for more info.
 Also http://www.csis.gvsu.edu/~greeneg/
EMAIL : [email protected]
============================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA7qZMynMfbISpaCwRAmdRAJ9GKduIqoek2rh/6/MIaPjHOtU4zQCdEaRU
v9Vh4RugUlffLyx1PxMq4rQ=
=Yi4T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----