plans and wishes
gschafer at zip.com.au
Sat Jan 24 16:33:07 PST 2004
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:51:39PM +0100, Alex Groenewoud wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
> > There is no doubting that the $LFS variable is much less useful since the
> > integration of plfs. I suppose we could get rid of it. But I'm strongly
> > against using /lfs.
> Your argument?
I already stated it. It's the UNIX way i.e. tradition. Others in this thread
agree. There is nothing technically wrong with using /mnt but it's just in
bad taste IMHO.
> > Why can't we just continue to use /mnt/lfs but without the variable?
> We could, but it's ugly -- or rather I find it ugly. What's more, when
> reading carefully, the FHS never speaks of subdirectories of /mnt, it
> just says that _/mnt_ is provided to temporarily mount _a_ filesystem,
IMHO /lfs is ugly :-)
The FHS is on purposely vague in many areas. Using the FHS in this argument
(either for or against) is not a good idea IMHO.
> I can imagine. When looking for FHS2.2, I grabbed 2.3beta too... They
> have gone mad!
Yeah, I know. Hence the flames on the LSB lists I alluded to.
More information about the lfs-dev