Re: FHS?

Well,

I for one would like to keep the INN stuff SEPARATE!

INN is extremely useful software - but its not something that needs
to exist on EVERY host. Its by no means an integral part of the OS.
It SHOULD live inside /usr/inn-2.2.1 or whatever.

On my development machine, I have installed two versions of INN
in separate hierarchies. In production, I may wish to do something
similar - have two instances of INN listening on different interfaces
and/or ports serving different needs.

So, can we please campaign to NOT have INN assimilated into the
mess that is RPM, apt (and Linux in general) etc.? The various
tools and config files get dumped in all sorts of non-intuitive
locations and there is no way to ensure that the installation
contains the complete set of files and man pages etc.

For the record, I have three instances of INND installed on
Red Hat Linux and am very happy with the results - but I had
some trouble getting it all set up and finding where Red Hat
had buried all the files. I have it installed on one instance
of Solaris  9 x86 and I much prefer the ability to set it up
the way I feel it should be set up.

Software Management is the single biggest reason that I prefer
Solaris over Linux (actually, its probably the only reason,
really). Unfortunately, Linux has a far more complete
set of device drivers than Solaris (x86 or Sparc).

Regards


> In article <1530000.1053996683@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> James Ralston  <qralston+ml.inn-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>Is there any interest in trying to make it possible to build and
>>install INN using paths which comply with the Linux Filesystem
>>Hierarchy Standard?
>>It's not currently possible to do this.
>
> It is, with a bit of care.
>
>>If the answer is "we don't care about the FHS", then I suggest that the
>> ISC should specifically ask Linux vendors to refrain from
>>distributing pre-compiled INN packages with their distros.
>>
>>Because the FHS specifically prohibits OS vendors from producing
>>packages which install in /usr/local, pre-compiled INN packages from
>> Linux vendors are generally a confusing blend between a pure FHS
>>installation and INN's "just install everything under a common
>>subdirectory" method.
>
> Check out the Debian packaged INN. It has been fully FHS compliant since
> basically forever. It isn't very hard to do either. Perhaps
> this is more of an RPM problem than anything else ;)
>
> Mike.
> --
> .. somehow I have a feeling the hurting hasn't even begun yet
>       -- Bill, "The Terrible Thunderlizards"
>
> --
> The From: and Reply-To: addresses are internal news2mail gateway
> addresses. Reply to the list or to miquels@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Miquel van
> Smoorenburg)