On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Tanguy Ortolo <tanguy+deb...@ortolo.eu> wrote: > I tend to agree. At least, this is how I interpret the FHS, and it seems > appropriate to me. Although it may not be useful in most cases, I do not > see it as harmful.
The harm is if it takes us extra development time because other distributions don't support it, provide configuration options for it, or test it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hard_disk_drives#Timeline The FSSTD started in 1994 when 1GB was a big hard drive. It became known as the FHS in 1997 when 10G was a big drive. The last FHS release was in 2004 when 100G was a big drive. Nowadays 100G disks are small by laptop standards and for desktops 1TB is about the smallest that anyone would buy. During the same time period there has been a lot of work on filesystem technologies to support larger storage (both directly through addressing limits and indirectly through fsck speed etc). Finally there has been development of OS technology such as a tmpfs for /dev and the recent addition to Testing and Unstable of a tmpfs for /run which reduces the use of the root filesystem. Things have changed a lot since the FSSTD first came out. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201112212155.23361.russ...@coker.com.au
