Well, you might know the history, but A lot of newcomers to Linux don't. It's nice and dandy to change things and I fully agree that we shouldn't be beholden to the FHS structure.
Shawn.
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-devel-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-devel-list-bounces@redhat.com]On Behalf Of Bill Crawford Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 12:58 PM To: Development discussions related to Fedora Subject: Re: few ideas how to make fedora better as a desktop
On 27/03/2008, Shawn Starr sstarr@platform.com wrote:
This is because /sbin was for 'static' binaries
(static-bin). We needed this back when live CDs didn't exist, or if you somehow foobared your GNU libc you had /sbin/sln (static link) to fix a system, now a days you pop in a CD, chroot to the saddened Linux system and repair it easily. You used /sbin as your emergency kit and superuser tools.
Gee, thanks for the history lesson.
Of course, if you can find me an example of dynamic linking from the time when "sbin" came into existence (other than on VMS) let me know ...
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 27/03/2008, Shawn Starr sstarr@platform.com wrote:
Well, you might know the history, but A lot of newcomers to Linux don't. It's nice and dandy to change things and I fully agree that we shouldn't be beholden to the FHS structure.
You're welcome to change what you like. Just don't expect the rest of us to jump when you say so. ;o)
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Shawn Starr sstarr@platform.com wrote:
Well, you might know the history, but A lot of newcomers to Linux don't. It's nice and dandy to change things and I fully agree that we shouldn't be beholden to the FHS structure.
So in your estimation, LSB compliance isn't worth keeping?
-jef
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 09:05 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
So in your estimation, LSB compliance isn't worth keeping?
We're not necessarily talking about breaking LSB compliance. LSB just says that you have to be able to /find/ those things in those locations, not that they have to be the real file, or that the file can't live somewhere else.
2008/3/27 Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com:
We're not necessarily talking about breaking LSB compliance.
I'm not sure that shawn here is saying that. So I wanted shawn's clarification as to shawn's thoughts on the matter of the importance of lsb compliance in shawn's vision of what shawn would think is optimal progress. Though if you want to speak for him, let me know, and I'll set the filters accordingly to just rename all his post so that they look like they are coming from you. We are in fact beholden to the FHS structure to some extent..even if we symlink or hardlink directories or files so they actually live somewhere else. Unless we are prepared to drop LSB compliance we have to pay lipservice to the FHS.
-jef
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 09:05 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Shawn Starr sstarr@platform.com wrote: Well, you might know the history, but A lot of newcomers to Linux don't. It's nice and dandy to change things and I fully agree that we shouldn't be beholden to the FHS structure.
So in your estimation, LSB compliance isn't worth keeping?
Oh cmon - that's a false dichotomy.
it's not one or the other.
You can not be beholden to the fhs and maintain lsb compliance with a small set of symlinks.
c'mon jeff. You know better than that.
-sv