On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 10:13, Marco d'Itri wrote: > >Leaving /etc/adjtime as is and telling admins to "move it and use a > >symlink" is a FHS violation because /etc/adjtime is. > What part of "FHS does not apply to local changes" you did not > understand?
No part. Please read my message again. The problem is the behavior of
the package; i.e., of the distribution, to which the FHS applies.
I don't care if the admin types:
# find /var -type f -exec '/bin/sh' '-c' 'mv "{}" /etc/`uuidgen`' ';'
(though I reserve the right to laugh my a** off)
>
> >/etc has a "static nature". See the note on /etc/mtab under Table
> >3.7.3.1. It is also for configuration files. /etc/adjtime is neither.
> Then propose to change FHS.
What change would you propose? Something along the lines of:
The requirements of this section must be followed, even if
the file happens to be called "adjtime".
PLEASE read <http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-3.7.html>. There is
only _one_ exception in the FHS for non-static/non-configuration data in
/etc, and that is mtab.
If you check your /etc into CVS, _nothing_ but mtab should change
without administrative action (except, perhaps, passwd, shadow, etc.).
That's what the FHS implies.
BTW: Debian is pretty close to FHS compliance on /etc. Once /run is
created and used, the only obvious one I notice is
http://people.debian.org/~stevenk/linda.d.o/unstable/binary-in-etc.html
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
