On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 03:02:34PM -0500, Mark Burgess wrote: > >The FHS gets thrown in my face from time to time (see the FAQ) but what
Probably by me. :-) >folks don't seem to realize is that is is just a collection of pretty ad >hoc selections of common usage discovered by some random people, and a >declaration of intent to not make the variety of conventions any worse. >A few special programs (like mail daemons etc) irregular practices have >been taken as definitive for no good reason on top of regular patterns >like /usr, but its is all very arbitrary. I actually do realize that it's arbitrary. The question if the decisions have a good rationale behind them, and if it even matters. IMO, if it doesn't matter, an "arbitrary" decision is probably okay. Standards are *really* important. Slavish adherence to dumb standards that don't make sense is stupid. :) (And yes, mail daemons living running from /usr/lib/share/libexec/sendmail/lib is pretty silly.) >Cfengine was written before the FHS, from the days when diskless >workstations were all the rage and /var and /tmp were the only private >areas. So I thought: keep is simple. No good deed goes unpunished. Yep, that actaully makes sense,certainly given the time and circumstances. While I think it slightly odd now, it does work. But I'll point out two things regarding this: the arugment (now) sounds very similar to "we've always done it this way," and I think that these working directory locations should have been configurable from the beginning. What I was more commenting on (this time), is whether the *RPM packages* should place binaries in /usr/local. They should not. This is not a cfengine thing, this is an RPM thing. >I see no reason to change a reasonable convention for a problematic one, >simply because a wanton gang of ad hoc law-makers rode into town on the >back of their (probably camels) waving their Linux Bibles. ;-) The Solaris package people could make the same argument for their packaging standards (if anyone ever bother to 1) make solaris packages and 2) follow the standards). >There, I said it! :-) :) > >On 02/04/2011 08:53 PM, Aleksey Tsalolikhin wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Jesse Becker <becker...@mail.nih.gov> wrote: >>> >>> Theoretically, Linux systems should use the FHS: >>> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ >>> >> >> Great link, thanks, Jesse! I will check this out. >> >> Please do be aware that Cfengine runs on many Unix systems, not only Linux. >> >> One of the unique characteristics of Cfengine compared to other open source >> configuration management tools, that it runs on the widest variety of >> Unix-like >> operating systems and even Windows. >> >> Best, >> -at >> _______________________________________________ >> Help-cfengine mailing list >> Help-cfengine@cfengine.org >> https://cfengine.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine >_______________________________________________ >Help-cfengine mailing list >Help-cfengine@cfengine.org >https://cfengine.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine -- Jesse Becker NHGRI Linux support (Digicon Contractor) _______________________________________________ Help-cfengine mailing list Help-cfengine@cfengine.org https://cfengine.org/mailman/listinfo/help-cfengine
