[vdr] Filesystem hierachy standard patch needs review.
ludwig.nussel at suse.de
Thu Sep 6 17:34:25 CEST 2012
Manuel Reimer wrote:
> So for me it seems to be useless to try to strictly separate VDR's
> configuration files between "static" and "dynamic". They all should be
> dynamic and maybe at any time they could get dynamic, if Klaus
> improves the OSD setup possibilities.
I'd still consider a file that is only modified if the user
intentionally does so via the remote control static. There's no
difference between that and using an editor except for the user
>> Lots of VDR-users use VDR as a standalone system and for those systems
>> /var/spool might be more appropriate than /srv
> /var/spool is definitively wrong, as this applies to "queue-like" things.
Well, that's your opinion.
>> /srv is right, if the VDR-machine offers the recordings like a NAS or
> FHS says:
> | /srv : Data for services provided by this system
> So as VDR is the primary service of such a box, /srv seems to be OK
> for me. And many distributions share the recordings via FTP or Samba
/srv in theory is taboo for distros (and it is in fact for Fedora)
so distros will be forced to patch vdr to use something else. It's
fine to use for a self compiled vdr but it's not for a distro
> For me the discussion about the default setting seems to be
> useless. The current default seems to match the FHS definitions
> pretty well and any distribution is able to easily add own
> settings via make parameters or via Make.config. So feel free to
> override the default and use your own settings.
We are forced to do that already anyways. If vdr changes anything wrt
fs layout I'd really like to see something acceptable for distros to
end the ranting about the different locations of /video.
Where are the vdr package maintainers of other distros hiding anyways?
(o_ Ludwig Nussel
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
More information about the vdr