Re: The objectroot FHS

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Sepero <[email protected]> wrote:

> Looking over the layout of objectroot. Like I said before, I like the all
> lowercase layout. My main criticism of objectroot would be of this
> directory:
> /users/common/
>
> What if I need a user named common?
>
> Why put executables/manpages/etc for all users in here? /users/common/*
> It would seem better served in /org/ or /hosts/
>
>
It wouldn't fit in those locations. But you have a good point. I suggested
the use of a separate /groups/ directory for common/. Other groups could be
added too. For example, groups for company departments. A user could belong
to one or more of these groups.

I am not sure the naming clash issue is that important though. I could
conceive of just having users, groups, orgs and hosts all in the toplevel
directory together, though that might seems too unorganized, commands like
`ls` could be modified to sort and/or color-code them according to type, so
it's not that big a deal. My only concern doing it that way would be
partitioning schemes. You couldn't just mount `users` to /dev/sda1` for
instance --but maybe that's not that big a deal since one could create
something like /system/partions/users -> /dev/sda1 and then symlink
/system/partitions/users/{name} for all /{name} fairly easy.


The layout of the /org/ directory looks similar to how the Android
> filesystem installs programs. I like it, and I like the way Gobo currently
> does it also.
>
>
Yes, I like it too. But I realize that something like Nix hashes would have
to be used if hosts are really going to share software. I think a happy
medium could be found between objectroot, nix and gobo designs.

        trans.

_______________________________________________
gobolinux-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-users