Am Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:24:47 +0100 schrieb Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no>:
Maybe I (or others) were unclear in our explanations, but at least you should have had a look at the software you are claiming to be buggy (you would quickly see that there is no problem).
Again, PulseAudio which Lennart Poettering likes to have as a standard completely doesn't work with (semi-)professional audio cards with an ice1712 chip. Yes, I had a look at PulseAudio. And as I already asked previously, why should I believe that his other software really works if he's not able to get that one software working. And, yes, there are incompatibilities in systemd. As far as I read there are a lot of initscripts which don't work with systemd and therefore have/had to be rewritten to get them working with systemd. Where's the bug? In the scripts or in systemd?
This is what all DEs I'm aware of have been doing for a long time. They create mountpoints and mount removable media under /media, which is perfectly in line with the FHS.
If they create a subdirectory under /media it's indeed corresponding to the FHS.
"Whatever the difference [...] may be", this should give you a hint that there is something you are missing...
Then explain it to me. An optical drive is also only mounted temporarily. I don't see a difference between mounting a harddisk temporarily or mounting a dvd temporarily. Maybe you can explain the difference.
Please stop this nonsense. First of all, the way in which /media is (and has been) used has nothing to do with Lennart. Secondly, the FHS has not been breached in this instance. Thirdly, anyone who knows anything about these matters agree that the FHS is outdated and needs to be rewritten (and that until it is, we should not care too much about it).
So let everybody invent their own directory scheme, because FHS is so called outdated so that every Linux distribution and every Unix derivate is totally incompatible with each other? Right, great idea! What about first rewriting the FHS first to make it up-to-date again and only then using this new FHS? Until then the FHS should be fully respected. And why doesn't have "anyone who knows anything about these matters" updated this FHS, yet? Because "anyone who knows anything about these matters agrees that the FHS is outdated and needs to be rewritten"? Come on, if this was really true then the FHS would have already been rewritten by those guys. So this is nonesense. And, btw., I don't see any point in which the FHS doesn't work anymore. But maybe you can explain this, too.
This is a waste of time. The upstream developers are well aware of the FHS. If their apps violate it, it is intentional.
Wrong again, it's not intentional, it's buggy. It was intentional if the FHS would first be rewritten and the upstream developers would then follow the new FHS. Heiko