[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Revised proposed interim FHS resolution


        I would like to strike the following paragraphs from this

 * Until a the a list of the differences between FSSTND and FHS, with
 a decision whether to change and if applicable a transition plan for
 each, has been prepared, Debian should continue to use the FHS.

        This had been discussed in the policy group for a while, and
 people on either side of the heated discussions are not arguing the
 desirability of the switch. For the most part, the move is
 incremental, and mostly transparent, and far more packages have moved
 towards the FHS than those whose docs have appeared in
 /usr/share/doc/ with no fuss.

 * The policy manual should immediately be amended accordingly
 immediately, to change the reference to the FHS back to the FSSTND,
 and to add a comment saying that /usr/share/doc, /var/state and
 /var/mail are not yet to be used or referred to.

        The former is overkill, the latter [apart from the /usr/doc/]
 already is in the policy document (perhaps one should read the latest
 policy document?) I think we should clarify the policy document about
 the exceptions, addin /usr/doc to it, rather than rolling back the
 parts of the move that have been accomplished succesfully.

     The location of all installed files and directories must comply (with
     some exceptions [1] ) with the Linux File system Hierarchy Standard
     (FHS). The latest version of this document can be found alongside this
     manual or on tsx-11.mit.edu in
     /pub/linux/docs/linux-standards/fsstnd/. Specific questions about
     following the standard may be asked on `debian-devel', or referred to
     Daniel Quinlan, the FHS coordinator, at <quinlan@pathname.com>.

     [1]  In an as yet unreleased version of the standard, the location of
          the mail spool and state information directories has changed; and
          we propose to follow the latter, since that would mean that we do
          not have to move things around again when the new version of the
          FHS comes around). The changes are, amongst others,
          s%/var/mail%/var/spool/mail% and s%/var/state%/var/lib%

 * Discuss and agree policy on other aspects of FHS transition, or
 agree to refer this matter back to the debian-policy group, possibly
 with some specific advice.

        What is the rationale for this item? Hasve we been asked to
 adjudicate any other aspect of the FHS transition? Are there known
 problems that can not be dealt with by the policy group? If this ctte
 is a resource of the last resort, should we not have reasonable
 grounds for expanding our efforts?

 Life is to you a dashing and bold adventure.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Reply to: