Dan Smith wrote:
Rahul, thank you on the feedback. FHS? I documented based on default
Fedora installs.
Yes and that follows the FHS standard hierarchy at
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/. For administrators, pointing to the
standard and describing exceptionns would be much better.
The exceptions were purely commonly installed tarballs.
I did not go into detail such as WHERE the files might be found. Only
pointed out that they might be in a different place. That's what I was
talking about style however. Whether such practical usage tips were
appropriate for the document. Apache in particuler is probably more
frequently installed by tarball than by rpm. One of the biggest driving
factors is that when a patch comes out it can be days or weeks before an
RPM comes out where the tarball is the official means of release.
Tarballs also offer a great deal of customization not easy or possible
with the current rpm configuration. So I thought it was important to
document that.
Encouraging the usage of tarballs is generally a bad idea. It creates
maintenance problems on security issues, upgrades etc. In general, for
security issues or critical bugs, Fedora would prioritize provide a
update within a few days. Even if customization is required, patching
and rebuilding source RPMS is much better than sticking tarballs into
the system.
I will delve into more details about /etc/issue files. Any other areas I
did not cover well or need more detail?
There are similar documents elsewhere which could be referenced for
ideas. Example, the filesystem guide at
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-5-manual/index.html
Rahul
--
fedora-docs-list mailing list
fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
