network profile
|
Feb 13 |
awarded | Teacher |
|
Sep 6 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
May 14 |
awarded | Editor |
|
May 14 |
revised |
Does this exist: a standardized way of documenting a file-system structure Changed "filing" to "readme" -- following convention |
|
May 14 |
awarded | Student |
|
May 14 |
comment |
Does this exist: a standardized way of documenting a file-system structure "Instead of a .filing file you could store that information in an alternate data stream (yes, folders can have ADS too). You could use extended attributes on Linux and OSX." Possible, I imagine, but decreases the portability and transparency that I think is so important. What if I want to place everything in a git repo? Plaintext files are used for directory-specific config (e.g. htaccess), so why not documentation too? |
|
May 14 |
comment |
Does this exist: a standardized way of documenting a file-system structure "the idea of categories (=directories, folder) doesn't scale" -- true-ish, except sometimes it just has to. Say, big software source trees (git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git;a=tree). |
|
May 14 |
awarded | Commentator |
|
May 14 |
comment |
Does this exist: a standardized way of documenting a file-system structure "Write a documentation for your directory structure" -- also a great idea. It's essentially what I'm suggesting; just that the documentation would be distributed rather than monolithic. |
|
May 14 |
comment |
Does this exist: a standardized way of documenting a file-system structure "Use descriptive and consistent directory names" -- absolutely necessary, yes. Unfortunately there's a conflict between descriptivity and brevity -- no-one wants to type a path to a file in /srv/all-hierarchical-data/accessible-only-by-office-and-admin/letters-but-not-public-notices/academic-year-of-2009/... and so on. |
|
May 14 |
comment |
Does this exist: a standardized way of documenting a file-system structure "Nothing is worse than an ever changing file-system structure" except for one that resolutely refuses to change even when the structure not longer makes sense. |
|
May 14 |
comment |
Does this exist: a standardized way of documenting a file-system structure I've dabbled with various CMSes, but have found that portability, simplicity, and transparency are huge costs to pay when compared to the most venerable CMS out there: the directory tree. Most data I've had to manage could fit into a hierarchy. As a last resort, there are symlinks. And the directory structure is sometimes the only solution: e.g. in software development, the source code is, at base, a directory tree. (Documenting directories like that generally means sticking to a rigid and cryptic schema, which eventually breaks down. I think my solution could help here, too.) |
|
May 14 |
asked | Does this exist: a standardized way of documenting a file-system structure |
|
Dec 30 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Dec 30 |
accepted | Shell not finding binary when attempting to execute it (it's _definitely_ there) |
|
Dec 30 |
comment |
Shell not finding binary when attempting to execute it (it's _definitely_ there) ARGH. Sorry, the problem is now solved, and you were right: libraries had been removed. When the system was fscked around with yesterday by SOMEONE attempting to install flash-player, some low-level libraries were removed. It's presumably one of the following, that I've just installed: ia32-libs lib32gcc1 lib32stdc++6 lib32v4l-0 lib32z1 libc6-i386 Thanks to everyone for help with a problem that wasn't completely described. |
|
Dec 30 |
comment |
Shell not finding binary when attempting to execute it (it's _definitely_ there) I've got around to trying the same binaries on a different system (using scp), and they work as expected there -- i.e., as they were working originally on this system.
The saga continues... |
|
Dec 30 |
comment |
Shell not finding binary when attempting to execute it (it's _definitely_ there) It's a 32-bit binary and a 64-bit system. The same, presumably for all libraries that came with the package. This is probably not the issue as I've already had the binaries running on this system, and to my knowledge no libraries have been removed since the last successful run. |
|
Dec 30 |
comment |
Shell not finding binary when attempting to execute it (it's _definitely_ there) If this is a helpful diagnostic, a new PID is shown before the error if i fork it: ./GutenMark &. |
|
Dec 30 |
comment |
Shell not finding binary when attempting to execute it (it's _definitely_ there) (I should note I meant GutenMark, not Gutenmark, above.) |
