Refer to "Linux File System Hierarchy" instead of the FHS #1475
No reviewers
Labels
No labels
announce
bootstrap
Closed As
accepted
Closed As
duplicate
Closed As
exceptionexpired
Closed As
fixed
Closed As
invalid
Closed As
nothingtodo
Closed As
permanentexception
Closed As
rejected
Closed As
temporaryexception
Closed As
wontfix
cmake
committee
draftneeded
hasdraft
meeting
meson
needinfo
Priority
In Committee
Priority
Needs Review
Priority
Waiting For Reporter
rust
writeup
No milestone
No project
No assignees
7 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
packaging/guidelines!1475
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "use-file-hierarchy"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
The FHS is severly outdated. Even the "current" version 3.0 is 10
years old at this point (published June 3, 2015), and hasn't even
followed the evolution of Linux systems that happened before 2015.
In particular, at that time, the usr-merge had already happened in Fedora,
with the relevant discussions happening very publicly in the preceding years.
Obviously, the FHS also couldn't follow later changes like the sbin-merge,
or increasing use of /run. There are some open tickets discussing additions
to the FHS, but they are stalled and it seems that there is little suppport
among the maintainers. At this point, the FHS is mostly of historical interest.
Link to file-hierarchy.7 that is provided by the systemd project. It
describes modern Linux systems as they are, so it's both much more
accurate and relevant, but also a much shorter document. That page
internally links to FHS 3.0 and XDG docs, so the interested reader can
read the background docs if they want to. Since the new page actually
describes what we are doing anyway, this doesn't introduce any new rules,
only just drops some baggage that we were ignoring anyway.
Prompted by fedora-devel thread:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/54GTFIECDKTIBATUVG3JQ4ZEDFBUMNLE/
There are a few more references to
FHSin the guidelinesNot sure how much we want to link to a systemd man page.
Maybe worth borrowing/repeating it in our docs, along with notes saying FHS is dead.
We have now moved it to https://uapi-group.org/specifications/specs/linux_file_system_hierarchy/ which is neutral grounds
rebased onto
24b018899fI updated the patch here to link to the new location.
Apparently not entirely, FHS 4.0 might come out at some point. But I still think it makes sense to link to the new page. It just is a lot of text that is not at all specific to Fedora. By linking to the external docs we make it more likely that other distributions will follow the same rules. And we don't need to duplicate the work.
We made some updates and clarifications to the LFSH document, adding descriptions of
/opt,/usr/include, and/usr/libexec. Please consider merging this PR.Unfortunately, I would oppose merging this change since UAPI LFH is fundamentally opposed to what most distributions do and what existing stakeholders even want.
I think any decision on whether the distribution follows any specific version of the FHS or the LFH or something else is quite fundamental and should be made by FESCo or higher up than that. If a decision is made to change what the distribution follows, then we can update the packaging guidelines.
I have no objection to, or opinion on, such a change; I just don't think it is this committee's place to decide.
Hmm, that is some strong words. Do you have any quotes or facts or anything else to substantiate this claim?
→ https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3490
rebased onto
9f5fc87ef4rebased onto
43294c77c6Rebased. I dropped the commit for
/nix(since that was already merged separately), and added a new one for/boot/efi.Given @ngompa and @tibbs comments ... I don't see this going anywhere unless you open a FESCo ticket.
The other option is to change this to be a minor update noting that the std. we adhere to is old, and highlight that any changes for cross distro. compatibility should go through FESCo.
There is a fesco ticket: #1475 (comment)
It's "stalled" too, though.
View command line instructions
Checkout
From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.Merge
Merge the changes and update on Forgejo.Warning: The "Autodetect manual merge" setting is not enabled for this repository, you will have to mark this pull request as manually merged afterwards.