Problems with FHS compliance.

Nathan Coulson conathan at gmail.com
Wed Jun 7 22:10:55 PDT 2006


>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/attachments/20060607/c0e81ff1/attachment.html>


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list