Re: "goals" for slink: FHS
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> wrote:
> I don't like this proposal. This implies that if you want even
> one package that depends on fhs, you end up moving stuff
> indiscriminately into the new locations.
What do you think of the earlier proposal (putting symlinks in so that
stuff installed in the new location still appears in the old location,
then moving everything later)?
> Why can't we do it on a package by package basis, and have man
> and info look in all possible locations?
Do you care that current packages won't be able to read the new stuff?
Does it matter that there are a number of packages (not just info and
man) that need to be updated?
> We are supposed to revert to compatibility between released
> and unstable distributions, so that people may mix and match packages
> at will.
Absolutely.
> I instead proposae that we put modified man info packages both
> in slink, and in hamm-updates (or 2.0 r2, or whatever), so that peole
> can keep a hamm system, but select a few from slink.
I don't see how this addresses the issue of keeping man and info
visible when someone happens to not upgrade these packages.
> I see absolutely no justutfication in not retaining
> compatibility between both distributions.
Me neither.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: