Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I have been invited to attend the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit > taking place at the University of Texas Supercomputing Center in Austin, > TX from April 8 to 10, 2008. > > I applied using my LFS background and feel I will be representing the > community there. The agenda is at: > > https://www.linux-foundation.org/events/collaboration/program > > I will be attending the following sessions with LFS in mind: > > Open Source Legal Issues for Non Lawyers > (do we want/need to change out license) > > LSB Workgroup Meeting > (here I am interested in getting the directory layout updated. > I don't thing /usr/X11R6 is really appropriate any more.)
There is more than just that holdover that is wrong the the FHS and with the LSB. [ at least in my opinion ] with the FHS: /media << new usrs think store music and videos, which is where MS stored them pre winxp, not removable disks / drives. This name is NOT clear and that lack does not help with adoption of GNU-Linux by more people. /mnt << if using /media, why bother with /mnt? if using /mnt then get rid of /media. 2 separate sections for mounting filesystems is a waste of effort. /opt << meant for third party applications, not those included in a distro? then why would any distro install anything into it? [ Suse, installs almost everything over the base system into it last time I checked to be specific. ] /proc << was this not being done away with in favour of /srv? With the LSB: Why would a BASE standrd not stop at the absolute minimum needed for a functioning system? The addition of package management [ for example ] to the LSB has made in no longer a BASE standard. If extras are going to be included, then call it a Linux DISTRO Standard, not a Base Standard. [ I for one ignore the LSB because it is not what it claims to be, a BASE for Linux.] LFS and DIY are much closer to being a base in the lack of extra software. Both sections need to be made as simple and clear as possible, with the absolute minimum required for a functional system to be base system standard. The additions to the LSB, while meant to promote support for Linux by commercial software houses, actually do nothing but polarize the community, since they pick one package over another, to the irritation of the supporters of the package(s) not picked. The infamous Vim / Emacs holy war being a good example of what the LSB is doing when they pick one package over another. A specific suggestion re the package manager, remove the reference to RPM in that section, and you remove the LSB from the dispute about which package manager is better. If the LSB just said packages must follow this format (format details as written, without reference to any specific package ) Anything that should be adopted by all distros must remain non-controversial to truly be acceptable by all, the more specific the LSB gets, the less respect many people will have for it. Specific in software over the true base system being the issue. Jaqui -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
