On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:09:05AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote: > On Sat, 18 May 2002 10:07:41 -0300 > "Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" <hmh@debian.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 18 May 2002, Glenn McGrath wrote: > > Maybe small parts of the FHS cause trouble for the Hurd; these could be > > changed for Debian. HOWEVER, Debian GNU/Hurd is *not* to be GNU/Hurd > > with Debian packages. It is to be a _Debian_ system with the Hurd > > kernel. So, whatever isn't kernel-specific IS supposed to be the same. > > If being"Hurdish" is more important to you than being "Debianish", then > > as far as*I* am concerned, you are welcome to fork the project, and go > > away. > You would have to drag me kicking and screaming. > > If you cannot agree to that, and do notice I never said we shouldn't > > change a few things on the way the filesystem is currently laid out in > > the Debian GNU/Linux side of things (FHS or no FHS), then you will be in > > for a very rough ride. > And if Debian is commited to the LINUX Standards Base, do you expect > Debian GNU/hurd and Debian *bsd(s) to also comply to the LINUX Standards > Base ? I assume that you're suggesting here that standardizing on the LSB would be a logical next step for Linux supporters to take after the FHS. That's not the case. The FHS is useful to Debian because having *some* standard describing the system layout is necessary to ensure that we produce an internally-consistent system that's easy for both users and other developers to work with; and all other things being equal, using a common standard is better than developing our own because it lets us leverage greater mindshare. In stark contrast, the LSB is a standard that only benefits /vendors/ directly; indeed, by requiring conformance with a frozen ABI, the LSB makes /more/ work for developers. If the LSB is supported at all, it will be through the efforts of a small group of concerned developers to bring this about in a policy-conformant way -- *not* through the use of policy as a club. That being the case, I can't imagine that anyone's going to expect the Debian Hurd port to be ABI-compatible with a vendor specification written for a different kernel that's external to Debian itself. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpmCyylnAphs.pgp
Description: PGP signature