RE: FHS?

Oh, I am all for options too. But I certainly don't want my
"right" to set up INN separate from the rest of the OS for
maintainability purposes to be taken away by the FHS Nazis.
I believe the FHS in general to be an abomination - but then
I recognize myself to be extremely biased about this too.

Red Hat and other distros did us all a MAJOR disservice by
lumping the OS and the applications (be they development or
whatever) all in one jumbled barely coherent mess.

Regards

-----Original Message-----
From: inn-workers-bounce@xxxxxxx [mailto:inn-workers-bounce@xxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Jeffrey M. Vinocur
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 5:43 PM
To: inn-workers@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: FHS?


On Tue, 27 May 2003 divya@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

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

And yet, many people would like to use an FHS-like arrangement.  The 
entire purpose of separating binaries from configuration files from 
lockfiles and pipes from whatever else is that these different components 
have different demands in terms of what sort of filesystems can store them 
(read-only or read-write, slow read time acceptable or not), how often 
they need to be backed up and how long the backups need to be kept, 
whether they need to be someplace where they won't break anything if they 
start growing without bound (spool, logs), etc.

So whether you want all the INN stuff together or not, other people may 
want it distributed appopriately and there's no reason we can't support 
that configuration as well.


-- 
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
jeff@xxxxxxxxxx