Re: [MINTOS] fs tree structure (was: Re: MiNT goes UNiX, ... )

[hohmuth@freia.inf.tu-dresden.de (Michael Hohmuth)]

Annius Groenink writes:

> > I'd like to propose not to go into too much detail in defining a "standard"
> > for the file system layout.  Different distributions will handle things
> > differently, so I don't see much sense in discussing at this time where 
> > particular binaries of particular flavours of Unix should live, especially
> > since most programs are independent of their physical location.
> 
> I totally agree.  MiNT shouldn't be viewed as an attempt to obtain a
> complete UNIX clone.  I mean look at this discussion, it's ridiculous,
> really.  There's nothing Atari-specific left.  What about GEM for example.
> Did we forget about that?

(I think you've missed the point.)  

I didn't want to ask everybody to stop discussing how MiNT could be
turned into something that looks like Unix.  I just proposed not to
commit ourselves to a fixed Unix tree structure (i.e., where the
binaries live, etc.) because I think that it should be the task of a
distribution kit to set things up.  People could then choose a
distribution that matches their preferences.

Rather, we should concentrate on things that have to be generalized
in order to reach a state where Unix software con be compiled out of
the box.

As far as GEM and Atari specifics are concerned, it would be nice to
have them fit into a Unix environment nicely.  With the current GEM
implemtations, this seems to be impossible.  What we're in need
of is a GEM server (that can be killed and replaced by an X server :-) 
or, even better, a set of GEM widgets on the top of X.

Michael
--
Internet: hohmuth@freia.inf.tu-dresden.de