Re: "goals" for slink: FHS
On Tue, 28 Jul 1998, Clint Adams wrote:
> > The transition is not irrelevant. We have decided that full FHS
> > compliance is not an acheivable goal for 2.1, so 2.1 is expected to be
> > hybrid.
>
> It seems to me that making provisions for a hybrid system would take
> just as long as or longer than moving the paths abruptly. If we
> can't muster enough effort to do this then we should stick with
> the FSSTND for slink.
In fact, Ian said (IIRC) recently that one important goal for
debian henceforth was that all changes be incremental. You will notice,
for example, that we didn't *need* to wait for every package to be libc6
to release hamm - we had a successful hybrid environment.
IMHO, with appropriate symlinks, only a small number of packages will
actually *break* under FHS. Many will work fine, and a few will just put
files in the wrong place.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: