Re: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.0
(Note, that I just sent an announcement to debian-devel-announce which
explains the decision to stay with FSSTND for "hamm".)
On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> > We had some discussion about this on debian-policy right after FHS was
> > released. The basic consensus was that attempting to be FHS complient for
> > hamm would delay the release unacceptably, since basically all packages
> > are affected. I believe we'll be revisiting FHS compliance after hamm is
> > out the door.
> I think it would be nice (for maintainers) if we could start to move to FHS2
> - for instance moving documentation to /usr/share/doc at the same time as
> updating packages to libc6.
Please don't do this! The migration process from FSSTND to FHS needs to be
well prepared before anyone starts updating his/her packages. If you want
to help with the preparation, please join firstname.lastname@example.org.
(I think we should create a "Debian FSSTND to FHS Mini HOWTO" in the
process of the discussion which can be used by every maintainer to update
his/her packages-- _after_ hamm has been released/frozen.)
> I don't know FHS2 at all and there maybe little point in doing this now for
> packages like exim (which would have to be changed later to use /var/mail).
> There is also the drawback that some packages would be using /usr/doc and
> some would use /usr/share/doc. Does anyone have a good idea of whether using
> FHS2 now is going to save time or just cause hassle for all concerned?
I don't think it will save as any time if we update some packages now.
-- _,, Christian Schwarz
/ o \__ email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
! ___; email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
\\\______/ ! PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
\ / http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/
"DIE ENTE BLEIBT DRAUSSEN!"
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .