On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 12:30:24AM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote: > Or GNU theirs. If GNU was involved in FHS discussions, there are > probably good reasons why the FHS didn't take their views on board. > If they weren't, then they should aim to follow the FHS anyway or aim > to get involved in changing it. I haven't looked, but I would presume > that the Debian GNU/Hurd port is following the FHS, so it can be > done. (Otherwise, we'll have different Debian systems with radically > different filesystem structures, which just seems to me a very bad > prospect, for example, if people choose to migrate at some stage from > Linux to the Hurd, and also for sysadmins trying to look at both > Linux-based and Hurd-based Debian systems. Besides which, it's the > current policy.)
GNU/Hurd *should* *not* *ever* follow FHS. GNU/Hurd would lose at lot of it's ellegance then. FHS has many bogus things as the whole `/usr' hierarchy, which have *no* *value* *at* *all* on microkernel/multiserver systems such as GNU/Hurd. And FHS can't easily be changed, because too many systems have too simpistic view on file systems, with data-storage-device and directory-subtrees equivalent, so changed FHS wouldn't be very widely usable then. Better try to make GNU/Linux use GNU fs hierarchy (finaly, it's free OS, so we can do what we want with it). What about relase goal for woody : with woody one will be able to have (/bin /usr/bin /usr/X11R6/bin /usr/games) stuff in one directory, (/sbin + /usr/sbin), (/lib + /usr/lib + /usr/X11R6/lib) and (/usr/share/man + usr/X11R6/man) also as long as they are properly symlinked.
