(Note: this message is crossposted between two mailing lists -
you should probably follow up on only one.)
What used to be the FSSTND group has changed composition somewhat, and
now includes a number of people from the BSD world. It set itself the
goal of producing a joint filesystem layout standard, named the FHS.
I argued against many of the changes that were proposed, on the
grounds such as the disruption that would be caused to the Linux
community by moving things or the fact as I saw it that the FSSTND's
arrangements were cleaner and that we should not compromise, moving
things to messier locations, because BSD had done it that way.
I lost this argument, chiefly through a combination of poor politics
on my part and the fact that there were more people who seemed willing
to make major sacrifices for compatibility with BSD.
The latest draft FHS, which they may well publish as it stands, makes
the following changes with which I have very strong disagreements:
* The mail spool, /var/spool/mail, is moved to /var/mail.
* /var/lib is renamed to /var/state (yes, all of it).
* /var/lib/games is moved to /var/games.
* A new directory /usr/libexec is created to hold command binaries
used only internally by programs - these are to be moved from
/usr/lib and in some cases /usr/sbin. Oddly there is no
corresponding /libexec directory.
The two good changes that I see are (and they are not minor):
* /usr/share exists and is defined.
* /opt exists and is defined.
I have spent an awful lot of time and energy on the FSSTND mailing
list, and I do not have any left with which to further persue this
matter there in the face of the very considerable amount of bad
feeling which exists.
It pains me greatly to say this, given my emotional investment in the
work of the FSSTND, but: if the FHS draft is promulgated as it stands
I shall not support its adoption by the Debian project.
It looks like we (Debian) are going to need /opt, and possibly
/usr/share. We can take those parts if we need them.
I'm posting this message so that:
(a) The rest of the Debian Project can decide what they want to do.
If the consensus is that they wish to follow the new standard then
I shall be unhappy, of course. I don't know what my reaction
would be in terms, for example, of my authorship of dpkg and of
the Debian Project policy manual. Disillusionment, I suppose.
(b) The newly-renamed FHS group can reconsider - though I doubt that
they will. They'll see this as an attempt by me to blackmail
them.
For the Debian people: the latest draft can be found on tsx-11.mit.edu
in /pub/linux/docs/linux-standards/private/fsstnd/.
Ian.
[1] When the original FSSTND was created I argued in favour of
/libexec and /usr/libexec, but lost that debate. I'm less convinced
now than I was then, but my main reason for opposing it now is that it
is too late to change.
