Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:44:25 -0400
From: Rich Felker <>
Subject: Re: filesystem layout

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:53:55PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 09/25/2012 11:58 AM, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
> > @vision of the new platform
> > 
> >
> > 
> > stali from proposes an alternative filesystem
> > scheme. It gives clear organization of the system... but not
> > compatible with FHS. What do you think of this solution? Sabotage
> > distro also has its own concept...
> I commend their idea of removing dbus and implementing bluez w/out it.

I'm quite interested in this. Do they have it working?

> Hopefully a libc wouldn't require a specific fs layout.

>From a libc standpoint, the only thing I have to say is that I'm
against any gratuitous filesystem layout changes that would force libc
to be aware of additional variants; that's just gratuitous bloat and
incompatibility. In particular, /dev, /proc, /etc, /tmp, /bin/sh, and
/lib/ld* should not move.

Otherwise, the fs layout is rather irrelevant to libc. As discussed
before, non-libc topics related to this community's projects/ideas are
on-topic on this list, but I also think fs layout is mostly irrelevant
to the "new platform" thread as well. It wasn't my intent to impose
any particular filesystem policy with the new platform except perhaps
some unix socket paths, etc. that would be part of the "api".

Where the fs layout topic is interesting is when you're designing a
distro or want to make binary packages that fit into an existing fs
layout. I don't mind if that's discussed here, but it's getting mildly


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.