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

Re: /tftpboot vs. /var/tftp vs. something else?



On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 16:20 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007 3:52 PM, Jon Masters <jonathan jonmasters org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 08:34 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > > On Nov 13, 2007 6:35 AM, Alan Cox <alan redhat com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 09:20:28PM -0700, Richi Plana wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 22:45 -0500, Warren Togami wrote:jA
> > > > > > Edubuntu is using /var/lib/tftp as their tftpdir.  Should we use it as well?
> >
> > > > /tftpboot is the historical tradition going back about thirty years. Why
> > > > break every script, every book and every third party management tool ?
> >
> > > What would be the proper RFC process to go over such a change? As in
> > > say creating a /srv/fedora/ and start populating it with data or some
> > > such?
> >
> > Don't take this personally, but that is absolutely the worst single idea
> > I have heard so far in this thread. So now we go from saying "ah, let's
> > move /tftpboot because it's the in thing to move stuff" to "hey! We can
> > make everything fedora-centric so sysadmins need to relearn everything".
> >
> > Woooo! :-)
> >
> 
> You missed the first part of the sentance. What would be the proper
> RFC process for doing something. It doesnt mean that the suggestion is
> a good one.. just that instead of some packager doing willynilly what
> they want.. how should they approach the problem that gets a proper
> technical engineering response.

Ah. I read into that *too* much. I parsed it as "and I want to do this".
But I'm actually /completely/ in favor of having a well defined RFC
process for additions to FHS, and I admit that I don't know what that is
in this case. By all means, let's have the discussion :-)

Jon.



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