On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Thomas Molina wrote:
> No I'm not kidding. Based on some comments by Linus earlier, he is
> advocating putting the kernel source tree out of the way of glibc and
> other "standard" development tools. /usr/local seems a better fit to me
> than /lib/modules. According to FHS /lib is for essential shared
> libraries and kernel modules. It also says one of the uses of
> /usr/local is for local source code. It's also one of the few places
> which shouldn't get clobbered in a system software upgrade.
FHS also says that a distro should ship with nothing in the /usr/local
tree.
But the FHS also says you can't have things like /usr/apache. But I find
that most useful, as deleting one directory removes all traces of the
program. Large packages that would normally end up all over the place can
be contained (like X, which FHS does allow to have its own place under
/usr).
> It was an opinion; I'm expressing my 'druthers, if you will. I know
> others don't agree. I see where it looks as if Linus is leaning towards
> /lib/modules anyway, so I'll adapt. Or I'll be contrary and make
> appropriate local changes in the source code. As long as Linus keeps it
> as a self-contained entity it won't matter anyway.
/lib/modules seems good enough. But as somone else said, it might make
more sence to be /lib/kernel. The one problem I see with this, is I
usually have a small(ish) root partition. On any installation I've done
/lib has never had its own partition. And on most, the root partition
hasn't been big enough to hold an unpacked kernel tree.
--
Two penguins were walking on an iceburg. The first one said to the
second, "you look like you are wearing a tuxedo." The second one said,
"I might be..."
--David Lynch, Twin Peaks
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:00:27 EST