About the supposed new filesystem layout

PovMan · Guru Joined: 30 Sep 2002 Posts: 375 Location: Australia

I was thinking about this, and the way linux does symlinks really good.
you could have it so that there is a /newfs or something, which contains a tree of the new layout, but everything is a *symlink* to the real place. then you would have it so that filemanagers and shells automatically chroot to there. or something. tell me what you think
_________________
I am SPAM, hear me roar.
Before posting your own topic, try to answer at least one unanswered one.

Redeeman · l33t Joined: 25 Sep 2003 Posts: 958 Location: Portugal

i think the new filsystem is quite nice, but it will be hard to just implement at once, but this idea really isnt that bad, but it will require that every package is emerged, and it would require editing in all the ebuilds too, so it would take some time, but it should be a opentional thing when installing, but i think that it should be optional to install everything with the new filesystem from beginning too

//Redeeman

PovMan · Guru Joined: 30 Sep 2002 Posts: 375 Location: Australia

The idea of having all symlinks is that you can install all your programs normally without any editing. So the normal filesystem stays, but it just looks different if you tell it to.
_________________
I am SPAM, hear me roar.
Before posting your own topic, try to answer at least one unanswered one.

Azaghal · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 02 May 2003 Posts: 103

new filesystem layout?

I must've missed something?

what's wrong with the current layout? :S
_________________
generatesig

Lovechild · Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2003 11:00 am Post subject:

kraylus · l33t Joined: 07 Jun 2002 Posts: 648 Location: ft.worth.tx

shm · Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2003 4:41 pm Post subject:

() · l33t Joined: 25 Nov 2002 Posts: 610

Let's not get into arguments over what is, in the end. a matter of taste. Sure, the layout could be improved (imo), but rudeness is no solution.

Toth · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 23 Feb 2003 Posts: 133

Is there a proposal of the new layout somewhere that could be looked at?

I think a new more logical layout would be nice.

Cossins · Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2003 9:43 pm Post subject:

The question whether Linux (and/or Gentoo) needs a new filesystem layout has been thoroughly discussed in another thread.
As I understood it, the purpose of this thread was not to debate whether we need a new layout, but how the new layout should be implemented.

So please: Keep it on-topic!

I think the real way to go is the GoboLinux way to do it, which is to patch the kernel making it able to handle hidden files not starting with a '.', similar to the way it's done in Windows and other operating systems. Then the old names for directories would be symlinks to the new ones, and all would be well.

- Simon

PovMan · Guru Joined: 30 Sep 2002 Posts: 375 Location: Australia

actually, i find the current linux layout much more useable than windows. Anyway, you know the proc filesystem, you could implement something like that to be the actual / filesystem if you pass the kernel the right option. so there are 2 different looking filesystems, but one is just distorting the other to make it easier for migrants.
_________________
I am SPAM, hear me roar.
Before posting your own topic, try to answer at least one unanswered one.

linolium · Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 5:45 am Post subject:

let the user customize it at stage 1? first i think you would have to go about allowing wildcards in PATH...

Mystilleef · Guru Joined: 27 Apr 2003 Posts: 561 Location: Earth

Errr...forgive my impudence, but what new filesystem layout? Where can I get info on it?
_________________
simple, sleek and sexy text editor for gnome

"My logic is undeniable."

telex4 · l33t Joined: 21 Sep 2002 Posts: 704 Location: Reading, UK

IMO the LFS layout is perfectly adequate for those who will sit down and learn it, and very suitable from a hacker's point of view. But to newbies who just want to work with their system, it is a little confusing... I rather like Gobo Linux's layout. The user should just be able to see their home directory, installed user programs (as opposed to system programs like ls, pkg-config, etc), user devices (so "cdrom", and not all the many symlinks that exist around it, and not all the ttys), and the other kinds of things that Windows 98 and MacOSX show you.

The problem though is that once you do that, it becomes very confusing trying to help somebody with such a layout do something reasonably complicated, so you'd have to be sure that the user can either quickly access all the hidden stuff easily (i.e be able to do "ls /dev" and see what we see) or the user would have to have no reason to ever need the LFS layout.

telex4 · l33t Joined: 21 Sep 2002 Posts: 704 Location: Reading, UK

IMO the LFS layout is perfectly adequate for those who will sit down and learn it, and very suitable from a hacker's point of view. But to newbies who just want to work with their system, it is a little confusing... I rather like Gobo Linux's layout. The user should just be able to see their home directory, installed user programs (as opposed to system programs like ls, pkg-config, etc), user devices (so "cdrom", and not all the many symlinks that exist around it, and not all the ttys), and the other kinds of things that Windows 98 and MacOSX show you.

The problem though is that once you do that, it becomes very confusing trying to help somebody with such a layout do something reasonably complicated, so you'd have to be sure that the user can either quickly access all the hidden stuff easily (i.e be able to do "ls /dev" and see what we see) or the user would have to have no reason to ever need the LFS layout.