Re: "goals" for slink: FHS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, James R. Van Zandt wrote:
> I think we have agreed to move toward FHS compliance, starting with
> slink.
I think we have not agreed on doing that *starting* with slink.
See Lars' proposal, which (IMHO) has been the best proposal so far
for slink to be released in time. We have to be realistic, or we will not
release in another one whole year.
If we are going to switch to FHS, I would propose to do it in two
steps, the first of them would be:
* Packages are *allowed* (but not mandated) to usr /usr/share instead of
/usr/lib for *internal* files. No changes in /usr/doc, /usr/info, or
/usr/man yet. Lot of packages do already use /usr/share, so this would not
be surprising for the user.
* While we develop slink, we should carefully think how we will do the
remaining things (for Debian 2.2) in a timely fashion. We should not wait
until slink is stable to think about how we will do this. Ideally, as
soon as slink is frozen, FHS-compliant packages should be allowed in the
new unstable.
BTW: Did somebody notice that /usr/doc/<package>/examples sometimes
contain binary executables? If we change from /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc,
we would have to move those examples somewhere else...
BTW2: Lots of packages not using debmake or debhelper have hardcoded
paths, like debian/tmp/usr/doc/$(package), in their debian/rules files.
I would recommend to switch to using variables now, and then change
the values of those variables when (and only when) we switch to slink.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNbxUCCqK7IlOjMLFAQE8hAP8CpD7EFqIAfCXK0Xo+W5rkvbIWAoPCMx9
0/hlECKH/lnLF1Rt0zhydfdOMW/b7fuVvjhEoFJso9UcCYzoKBrMYjtNP1Yz4Kpu
d7l5R0q5g80mGGzI5IAjGnU18/QzrjsvaXqdlr0aKYX4Oc0+zBBTNq4sSZyLJK9p
hwGCHWAptfk=
=zlJb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: