On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 01:35:39PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Um, no. The people involved didn't understand what it was for, and > > have in several cases now had little quandaries "where should we put > > this?" questions because they made a gap. > > I disagree with that statement. This is almost beginning to sound like > hurd developers have a monopoly on good sense. You disagree because a Hurd developers says it? That's funny. You are mixing GNU and the Hurd. /libexec is part of the GNU Coding Standards which means libexec should be used for all GNU packages. The Hurd is just one GNU package. The monopoly would go to GNU, if it would exist at all. But we didn't invent libexec. The BSDs have it too and I would not be surprised a lot of non-free Unix variants have it too. Only the FHS doesn't have it because they had no clue why it existed and ignored all existing systems which already has it. And now Debian GNU/Hurd and Debian *BSD should fix all the packages, change them from doing the wrong thing instead of the right thing, because the FHS developers have no clue what they are doing? That sounds a bit stupid to me. 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:
pgplk2P7QLqAg.pgp
Description: PGP signature