Re: Dir structure rough text version call for feedback.

[Rahul Sundaram <sundaram fedoraproject org>]

Dan Smith wrote:

> Rahul, thank you on the feedback.  FHS?  I documented based on default 
> Fedora installs. 

Yes and that follows the FHS standard hierarchy at 
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/. For administrators, pointing to the 
standard and describing exceptionns would be much better.

The exceptions were purely commonly installed tarballs.
> I did not go into detail such as WHERE the files might be found. Only 
> pointed out that they might be in a different place.  That's what I was 
> talking about style however. Whether such practical usage tips were 
> appropriate for the document. Apache in particuler  is probably more 
> frequently installed by tarball than by rpm. One of the biggest driving 
> factors is that when a patch comes out it can be days or weeks before an 
> RPM comes out where the tarball is the official means of release. 
> Tarballs also offer a great deal of customization not easy or possible 
> with the current rpm configuration. So I thought it was important to 
> document that.

Encouraging the usage of tarballs is generally a bad idea. It creates 
maintenance problems on security issues, upgrades etc. In general, for 
security issues or critical bugs, Fedora would prioritize provide a 
update within a few days. Even if customization is required, patching 
and rebuilding source RPMS is much better than sticking tarballs into 
the system.

> I will delve into more details about /etc/issue files. Any other areas I 
> did not cover well or need more detail?

There are similar documents elsewhere which could be referenced for 
ideas. Example, the filesystem guide at 
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-5-manual/index.html

Rahul