Subject: Small suggestion.... :-)

From: Damiano Bolla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 92 21:40:33 +0000

I spent a bit of time porting stuff this weekend. The various problems I
had suggested to me that there must be a way to make things easyer.

What I mean is that all people around is sayng: This is missing, this is
not standard SYSV, this has to be added. 

To who should this be directed ?
To Linux ?
To the linux-standards ?

Who decides if /unix is /unix or /linux ?
It is useful to know it so you can count on something when you start coding !

Damiano

P.S. When will the tree structure be published ?
     Can /unix be put in the tree structure ?
     ( I am against of reinventing new names for old things )

---

From: Chuck Boyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 08:00:48 -0800

Linus himself should decide what basic tree structure is used in Linux
and let all others restructure according to their needs. When they publish
a 'port' of some program they should designate what tree structure they
use in a readme file.
chuck

---

From: Linus Benedict Torvalds <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 18:29:04 +0200

> a 'port' of some program they should designate what tree structure they

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I feel that this kind of standard
is something I need not decide: the last draft I saw looked nice, and as
long as it's simple and relatively standard, I'll go along.  The
discussion on the directory structure seemed to be well enough thought
out, and all the points I ever wanted to say came up in mails by others. 
There was a lot of "noise", but the result looked simple and workable. 
I don't see why that couldn't be accepted as "final" - if there are
major problems we can always make changes later, but I wouldn't think
that would be needed. 

I'm also more than happy enough to see that people are ready to engage
in this kind of discussion: I'm mostly interested in the kernel proper,
and I feel user-level (even if the user is root) things are better
decided by people who use the system.  I'd rather just make the /really/
low-level things available: the kernel and the root-image.  If the rest
of the distribution can be organized some other way (ABC-release), I'll
be very happy indeed.

		Linus

---

From: Chuck Boyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 92 08:53:17 -0800

Okay. I/we are so grateful for your kernel/root-image Linux flavour of
unix for our hot new 386/486 boxes, all of the great work. Thankyou.
Okay for the 'standard' of the tree structure having been set and published
by others. Where is it, by the way? Will it be published in the FAQ, with
the new 13 version of Linux (out soon), or where?

I, by the way, am working on a text file (plain text with tabs, no
nroff, troff, Tex, etc.) on explaining for 'beginners' just exactly what
everything is pertaining to Linux on the ftp site tsx-11.

INSTALL
>these are the 1) Linux operating system itself; a) bootimage/version#,
>and b) rootimage/version#,  2) rawrite (program to be used in DOS environ-
>ment to transfer root/boot image files to floppies, 3) edpart, pdisk
>(hard-disk partition programs used in DOS environment to set up partitions).
 
 bootimage-0.12.Z
    partition-programs/
 rawrite.c
 rawrite.doc
 rawrite.exe
 rootimage-0.12.Z
 
INSTALL/partition-programs:
 edpart.arc
 edpart.doc
 pdisk.arc
 pdisk.doc
-----------------------etc....

I am willing to go through the whole thing and set it up like this.
The reasoning is that I, and perhaps others as well, get very tired
typing out the same answers/responses over and over again. Actually,
I need to hand hold a friend here at sumax and I'd like to make it 
available to the net.
Any suggestions?
chuck