Bug 5645 - FHS 2.3
: FHS 2.3
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Product: Install
Classification: Unclassified
Component: ISO
: post-1.0
: Other other
: P2 normal
Assigned To: Benoit PAPILLAULT
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/announce-...
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2004-02-03 16:23 UTC by Ladislav Hagara (lace)
Modified: 2005-04-04 06:44 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Ladislav Hagara (lace) 2004-02-03 16:23:14 UTC
FHS 2.3 is finally released http://www.pathname.com/fhs/announce-2.3.html
Our 1.0 iso should be FHS 2.3 compliant.
At least /media and /srv directory.
Comment 1 games 2004-02-03 19:35:04 UTC
they went ahead and added that ? 
I am unsure what to do about this, my impression from the mailing list was 
that no-one in SMGL wanted this ? 
Should I add it, change the mount points for cdrom and floppy in fstab, 
directly against the wishes of mosst of our long term users ? 
 
Should I add the directories but leave fstab using /mnt/* ? 
 
Fhs compliance would be really good, but I don't believe in changing to a 
system none of us want just because they says it is  progress . 
Lace, should we post this bug to the mail list ? 
 
 
 
Comment 2 Eric Sandall 2004-02-03 20:14:22 UTC
Last I remember most of us were against /media and /srv, but then I could have a
slanted memory. ;) I'd say don't use /media and /srv, at least not until after 1.0.
Comment 3 games 2004-02-03 21:15:39 UTC
hmm I just spent a half hour and read a few of the related bugs from the 
release announcement.(/srv /media /var/run and 
http://bugs.freestandards.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 ) 
I see a half dozen people talking theoretically about things they think 
distro's *should* support or be using. And a few extra people taking the time 
to create accounts and post to the bugs but their comments don't even seem to 
be acknowledged ? 
I see little *proof* that these were proposals are accepted by any 
distribution ?  
I am sure they mean well, but I don't want to jump on their band wagon. 
Of course, this is only my opinion. I will follow the majority's opinion and 
add /srv and /media if they wish it. 
Comment 4 Eric Sandall 2004-02-06 11:24:33 UTC
I'd rather wait on doing any of the new FHS stuff until it settles down, as from
what I remember most people were against it.
Comment 5 Karsten Behrmann 2005-01-18 05:16:03 UTC
especially stressing the WAIT.
benoit's stuff already does this, is that what we want?
btw, to whom is this bug assigned?
Comment 6 Benoit PAPILLAULT 2005-02-14 04:48:21 UTC
Fixed in 0.9.4-test2.

Benoit PAPILLAULT, ISO guru
Comment 7 Eric Sandall 2005-02-14 09:00:00 UTC
Shouldn't these (the 6 or so bugs you just said were fixed) be marked as FIXED then?
Comment 8 Eric Sandall 2005-02-14 09:24:22 UTC
Also, is the code for all these fixed bugs in Perforce?
Comment 9 Benoit PAPILLAULT 2005-04-04 05:42:08 UTC
Fix is in perforce. Look at smgl.install and mk-iso-root, creating /media & /mnt.
So, marking as fixed.

Benoit PAPILLAULT, ISO guru
Comment 10 Ladislav Hagara (lace) 2005-04-04 06:44:57 UTC
We have not /srv directory, but it seems it is not a problem.
Thanks.
Verified.