Re: [TCLUG:15556] Filesystem structures (was: [TCLUG:15481] Faeriedist)

[Dave Sherohman <esper@usinternet.com>]

Kevin Bullock said:
> Very true, and finding docs can be annoying even on a fully standardized
> system, but as has been implied previously on this thread, this seems like
> a bigger problem than directory structure standards. Personally I like the
> idea of documenting everything in SGML so you can easily produce docs in
> anything else (even though that means I should learn how to do it in SGML
> ;p ).

Definitely agreed.  However, when the FS standards are based on fuzzy
distinctions ('share' vs. 'local' vs. ''), it leads to files being scattered
around in non-obvious locations.

> One small correction though: on a fully
> FHS-compliant system (which Debian is going for), /usr/doc wouldn't be
> there (in my understanding), except maybe to solve some problems for
> distributed systems.

My understanding (based entirely on information that has been sent to this
list over the last couple days, so it could easily be wrong) is that 'share'
is supposed to denote platform- and/or architecture-independent files.
'local' appears to have been give over to files not derived from the
distribution's packages.  However, the distribution may include files which
are platform-/architecture-specific which would, therefore, belong in neither
(to use the ongoing example of documentation) /usr/local/doc nor
/usr/share/doc.  Wouldn't these then belong in /usr/doc?  Or is there another
subdivision that I've forgotten about?

-- 
The Shortest Windows Manual:  "Turn off the power switch."
Geek Code 3.1:  GCS d- s+: a- C++ UL++$ P+>+++ L++>++++ E- W--(++) N+ o+ !K
w---$ O M- !V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t 5++ X+ R++ tv- b++ DI++++ D G e* h+ r++ y+