[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [RFC] User Accesable Filesystem Hierarchy Standard

After the previous suggestions on this topic, I have revised the proposed standard somewhat. It is still posted in a variety of formats at:


I added the suggestion of using .<distribution>/<architecture>/ for a directory structure, rather than my first change to simply putting it into a hidden umbrella directory of a standard name. However, I still have several questions regarding this which I could not find an immediate answer to:

Should there be a standard naming scheme for architectures, or should that be left completely to the devices of the distribution? I'm tending towards leaving it to the distribution, but would like some comments.

What about architecture independent systems, like Java? Should each distro include a 'java' architecture, or something of that sort? There is no particular reason for such files to be in every architecture's folder when they work fairly widely.

I also liked the idea of having group directories similar to the shared directory. In a larger work environment, such directories could solve many difficult problems. The standard doesn't say much about them, however, besides that they can be named arbitrarily and should have an internal structure identical to /home/shared/ and should be located somewhere in /home/. I don't see what else is needed to be defined on that topic, but would like any suggestions.

I see no reason to unhide the program folders. They are still perfectly accessible when they need to be accessed, but they can at least be kept out of sight. This is even more important when using a naming scheme based on the distribution which could result in very many folders.

Due to the fact that I merely added to and edited the old document, rather than going through and actually rewriting it, or at least checking it, the wording is clunky on several occasions. I'm not too concerned, as this is still a draft, and will work more on clarity when the ideas to be conveyed are better decided.

As always, thank you for your commentary and criticism.

Micah Abresch
jamethknorth hotmail com

P.S. In case anyone was wondering why this was sent to the lists it was: those are the groups which have easily accessible public lists and to which this proposed standard seemed relevant.

P.P.S. Many people have contributed ideas in discussions but aren't added to the contributors section. Luckily, everything is in a public archive so I can go back and see who suggested what, but it would be easier if anyone who wanted to be credited would just e-mail me about it.

Persistent heartburn? Check out Digestive Health & Wellness for information and advice. http://gerd.msn.com/default.asp

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]