Re: Bug#3146: 1.1 installation: ae doesn't work
Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>
> This silly argument has gone on long enough.
>
> The FSSTND says, in section 1.5:
> Note that an implementation does not need to contain all the files and
> directories specified in this standard to be compliant or compatible.
> It is merely necessary for those files that it does contain to be
> located appropriately. For example, if the ext2 filesystem is not
> supported by a distribution, the ext2 tools need not be included, even
> though they are mentioned explicitly in the section on /sbin.
>
> ed is not supported unless you install the ed package.
I'm not sure you're reading that snippet from the FSSTND correctly.
I'm not sure you're reading it incorrectly either, but I read it
differently.
The clarifying example given said that e2fsck would not be required
if there were no ext2 filesystems to be checked. It did not say
whether or not e2fsck would be required if there were ext2 filesystems
but there were ten other tools to check them with. That's the
situation with regard to ed. There are text files to be edited, and
there are other editors available to edit them.
Rather than debating about what we each think the FSSTND might
be trying to say, how about getting a ruling on whether /bin/ed
is or is not required by the FSSTND? Dan Quinlan, are you out
there?
Reply to: