Fwd: Problems with FHS compliance.

Nathan Coulson conathan at gmail.com
Thu Jun 8 06:42:03 PDT 2006


(just trying this again, as I think the old one had html headers)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nathan Coulson <conathan at gmail.com>
Date: Jun 7, 2006 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: Problems with FHS compliance.
To: lfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org


>Recently it was brought up that we have a problem WRT /usr/share/man. I
>have two more WRT bootscripts.

>Specifically this bit from the FHS-2.3 for supporting these changes:

>> This directory contains any non-essential binaries used exclusively

>> by the system administrator. System administration programs that are
>> required for system repair, system recovery, mounting /usr, or other
>> essential functions must be placed in /sbin instead. [29]


>Unfortunately, this same note is not applied for /usr/bin (but should
>be), but this does cover it.

>> /bin contains commands that may be used by both the system administrator

>> and by users, but which are required when no other filesystems are mounted
>> (e.g. in single user mode). It may also contain commands which are used
>> indirectly by scripts. [1]


>One of my testing criteria is that the path includes only /bin and /sbin
>before $remote_fs is brought up. /usr/bin/find must be moved to /bin or
>the cleanfs script must be changed. I'm for moving find, or createfiles

>might get a few lines added to it in BLFS. :-)

We should have any scripts the standard LFS Bootscripts use in the
/bin or /sbin directory, so I am for this.

>>Next is the console script. Easiest solution is to move this after the

>>network script. Alexander, you are most knowledgeable with console
>>script. Is that acceptable or is there a requirement for it to be
>>before the network script? If so, then openvt, kbd_mode, and setfont

>>need to be moved to /bin from /usr/bin, along with anything else these
>>programs require in /usr. I prefer the second solution--moving the
>>files so that a user's locale is supported from sysinit on--but this may

>>be a larger change than I know about.


>Fedora fixes this by moving data files from the kbd package to
/lib/kbd, instead
>of /usr/share/kbd.

>However, my personal opinion about this is that "/ on disk, /usr on network"

>setup is inherently broken from the maintenance viwepoint (too easy to get a
>mismatch between / and /usr), and nfs-root setup is certainly preferred. If we
>document that we don't support the first situation, there will be no problem

>with FHS.

It sounds like you'd want to have a bootable system even if /usr is
temporairly not network mountable, so we would need to make the
console script work even without /usr. (This would probably also cover
the case where / is on a seperate partition from /usr, but /usr is too
corrupted to be mounted).


I would like to see this implemented, but how deep are the fedora
changes? I dont expect that the kbd package would find such changes
acceptable so we would have to maintain it longterm.



-- 
Nathan Coulson (conathan)
------
nathan at linuxfromscratch org
conathan at gmail com

-- 
Nathan Coulson (conathan)
------
nathan at linuxfromscratch org
conathan at gmail com



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list