On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 08:02:05PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen@dekkers.cx> writes: > > > On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 04:41:08PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > > Previously Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > > > The problem is that we don't have /libexec in Debian GNU/Linux (we do > > > > in GNU/Hurd). > > > > > > Are you implying that the Hurd is violating the FHS and thus Debian > > > policy? > > > > The GNU Coding Standards already specify /libexec for years, we are > > not going to change it because some spin-off of the *Linux* Standard > > Base says so. There isn't a GNU/Hurd annex for the FHS either, it will > > always violate the FHS without one. I already wrote an annex plus the > > needed changes to make the current GNU system compliant with the FHS, > > I need to finish the last bits and send it to the FHS mailinglist. I > > hope they will accept it. > > Is there any reason why libexec is not in the LSB? It's a good idea, > and is supported by all the GNU packaging/build tools. It would be > nice to have libexec in Debian GNU/Linux too. It's in use by the > various BSDs, so most packages already support using it. The reason is probably something like that they didn't understand what it is useful for (that happens quite often with them AFAIK). I'm going to propose it together with all the other things, so there is a chance they will do it right. Changing Debian policy to have Debian comply with the GNU Coding Standards would be much better, it has a lot of other nice things, like /com. It also doesn't have braindamage like /opt, so we don't need the ugliness of a dozen of empty directories which will never be used anyhow. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
Attachment:
pgpPBEK9atYkG.pgp
Description: PGP signature