[Xastir-dev] Standards: FHS, FSSTD, FSSTND, LSB

[Chuck Byam]

On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 12:25 -0700, Curt, WE7U wrote:
> Anyone familiar with the linux filesystem standards and directory
> heirarchy standards?
> 
> A question has been brought up w.r.t. the Xastir manpage and where
> it should reside.
> 
> Looking at FHS-2.3 it appears that "/usr/local/man" is the proper
> place, as we're doing now.
> If an install prefix is specified to configure though, such as
> "/usr", then we should be installing to "/usr/share/man" instead of
> "/usr/man"?
> 
> I also see that "/usr/local/share/man" and "/usr/local/man" are
> supposed to be one and the same, meaning one should be a symlink to
> the other.  On my SuSE system that isn't the case.
> 
> What is _THE_ standard we should be going by?  The FHS?  FSSTD?
> FSSTND?

As you have pointed out, all of these have been rolled into FHS and all
distributions follow this to varying degrees.  To follow this document
literally, then, we should be installing in /opt.  But keeping with the
spirit of any of the file system hierarchies, /usr/local has
historically been used for anything that didn't come with the
distribution.  Having said that, /usr/local/share/man (which is ln -s'd
to /usr/local/man) would be the proper location for user (i.e., our)
installed man files.

> For LSB compliance we may need to change things around a bit from
> default, but we have spec files and a configure-time parameter to
> use to trigger off of in that case.
> 
> What I'm interested in are the standard places we should install to,
> both for the default and for when an install prefix is specified.
> 

Default locations should abide by FHS (and LSB for that matter)
standards when possible.  If someone changes that location
via ./configure opts then that should be their prerogative and we have
little control over this.

re

-- 
Chuck Byam <kg4ijb at xastir.org>