On Mon, Dec 12, Chris Punches wrote:
These changes don't comply with systemd's publication either.
systemd's hier page you linked to is a subset of FHS 3.0 and plainly states so in their document. It is not a deviation of FHS 3.0 to follow it. This does not follow it.
??? The file-hierarchy.7 clearly states that it is inspired by FHS, but does not follow it. So if you follow the systemd definition, you are no longer FHS conform. And what we do is exactly the same as systemd is doing. So FHS != systemd We follow systemd But you are claiming systemd = FHS and but we not?
But even worse would be, if we would change the path of established upstream projects, like dbus. This would make us just incompatible with the rest of the world without any benefit
That's why the FHS standard exists in the first place. It's not up to upstream projects where files go on the system. It is up to the distribution maintainers and packagers to maintain FHS compliance to avoid such issues.
Why does it feel like people are not reading the documents they're citing on this?
Why do you always claim we are not FHS without proving it? Why do you not read the documents yourself as you claim others are not doing it? Please stop ranting here and come up with concrete examples. Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk, Distinguished Engineer, Senior Architect, Future Technologies SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany Managing Director: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Martje Boudien Moerman (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)