Re: where do NEW packages go?
On May 18, Adam Heath wrote:
> What a port needs to function is really not a concern of Debian
> Policy. If those invovled say a port requires foo to function, then
> why should Debian say they can't use it?
Debian shouldn't say no, which makes all this /libexec and /hurd
business more confusing than anything else. But this ought to at
least be documented in policy, so someone doesn't come down the pike 2
years later and say "The Hurd is violating the FHS" without something
to point to.
Now, if the Hurd group wants Debian to adopt /libexec globally, *then*
it would be something that needs to be done to amend the FHS.
> > The point of Debian is to have "userland" as similar as possible on
> > all Debian systems; Apache should always be in the same place whether
> > you're running Debian on Linux/m68k or Linux/MIPS or FreeBSD or the
> > Hurd. That's what standards are for. I want to be able to log into a
> > Debian Hurd system and not need to know that it's a Hurd system unless
> > I want to do special "Hurd things" that can't be done on other Debian
> > systems, just like I can log onto a Debian/m68k or Debian/Alpha box
> > and have everything "just work" unless I need to do something
> > hardware-specific.
>
> Having /hurd has nothing to do with FHS. You can have FHS, as well as having
> /hurd.
I'm not entirely sure what this paragraph has to do with what I wrote :-)
Again, if /libexec or /hurd is going to only be a port-only thing,
there's no problem (at least from my perspective), but if this is an
effort to convert the Debian project to using libexec *globally* (not
just on the ports that need it to function) then it needs to be aired
through the policy process.
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <chris@lordsutch.com> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: