Problems with FHS compliance.

DJ Lucas lfs-dev at
Thu Jun 8 21:57:43 PDT 2006

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Nathan Coulson wrote:
>> 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
>> separate partition from /usr, but /usr is too corrupted to be mounted).

This is a very important goal.

> I failed to express two separate points as two.
> Point 1: moving /usr/share/kbd to /lib/kbd is definitely doable, and it
> would allow earlier start of translated messages. This mainly amounts to
> the --datadir=/lib/kbd switch and moving binaries from /usr/bin to /bin.

Okay. Very good.  Anybody have objections?  Can we get this change
tested and put into the book?

> Point 2: I dislike /usr on network for completely unrelated reason.
> Suppose that you have several machines that share one /usr from network.

<Snip good advice>

I agree with the above completely, however, you forgot about SANs where
/usr isn't shared.  Granted, I have not put LFS on an enterprise server
(Yet!), not to mention that they are usually accessed through dedicated
interfaces, provided by the vendor (at least in my limited experience).
 I believe that we should continue to support remote /usr as long as the
changes necessary are manageable.

-- DJ Lucas

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list