Status and outlook of LSB and FHS compliance of Fedora.

[Chris Chabot]

> > That being said, there's no reason for Fedora not trying to be the
teachers
> > favorite, and providing this /svr solution.. However please then do it
by
> > placing some stratigicly chosen symlinks (ln -s /var/www/html /svr/www)
and
> > leaving the existing data layout as it is. That way Fedora could claim
> > conformaty to the new standards, while not upsetting the current
situation.
>
> Right now we have one directory for html data files, that would add an
> alternative path. That adds more confusion than helping the situation.
> I do think the reasoning behind the LSB recommondataions make sense, but
> they just come in too late and unless we have one setup between all
> distributions on how we package things, the real chance to setup new
defaults
> is also non-existing.

As i said, i do applaud any efforts to make *nix more understandable and
consistent, but i agree that the proposed solution would confuse more rather
then making them more transparent.

One reason why i think this is because their sugestion is using
constructions like /var/www, /var/dns, /var/ftp .. However on distributions
like Fedora you will often have multiple packages providing the same type of
service (for instance postgres and mysql).. That  situation forces you to
use package names for storing data (/svr/apache, /svr/mysql, etc) and thus
basicly replicating  the current (messy) situation without solving anything,
except to move data around

Also i can see the people rejoice already by having to re-partition their
servers because /svr is on the root file system, which doesn't have enough
space for their mail, databases, webroots, etc which used to be in /var.