On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 11:12:29PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > 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. > It's useful to have such a standard, that's why it's specified in the > GNU Coding Standard. I don't think the FHS is a good standard > however. A predictable troll of a response. If you haven't figured out by now why your efforts to reduce all discussions to a "GNU vs. the unenlightened" debate have been met with scorn, then I for one will not miss you when you go. <plonk> Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpNbhrMhB6XZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature