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