On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 16:20 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Nov 14, 2007 3:52 PM, Jon Masters <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 08:34 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > On Nov 13, 2007 6:35 AM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 09:20:28PM -0700, Richi Plana wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 22:45 -0500, Warren Togami wrote:jA > > > > > > Edubuntu is using /var/lib/tftp as their tftpdir. Should we use it as well? > > > > > > /tftpboot is the historical tradition going back about thirty years. Why > > > > break every script, every book and every third party management tool ? > > > > > What would be the proper RFC process to go over such a change? As in > > > say creating a /srv/fedora/ and start populating it with data or some > > > such? > > > > Don't take this personally, but that is absolutely the worst single idea > > I have heard so far in this thread. So now we go from saying "ah, let's > > move /tftpboot because it's the in thing to move stuff" to "hey! We can > > make everything fedora-centric so sysadmins need to relearn everything". > > > > Woooo! :-) > > > > You missed the first part of the sentance. What would be the proper > RFC process for doing something. It doesnt mean that the suggestion is > a good one.. just that instead of some packager doing willynilly what > they want.. how should they approach the problem that gets a proper > technical engineering response. Ah. I read into that *too* much. I parsed it as "and I want to do this". But I'm actually /completely/ in favor of having a well defined RFC process for additions to FHS, and I admit that I don't know what that is in this case. By all means, let's have the discussion :-) Jon. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
