If that's the only problem, is it really holding it back? I mean if
its really a good idea, then perhaps it should be going into the next
version of the FHS, but is it really essential for right now?
* Branden Robinson (branden@debian.org) wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 09:45:42PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> >
> > > 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. The fact is that the loader in *BSD is in libexec and that's
> > > part of the ABI. It isn't in GNU/Hurd, I don't know why, maybe to be
> > > compatible with GNU/Linux or for some other reason.
> >
> > Why not just use /libexec, for hurd, and be done with it? Why force the rest
> > of Debian to require use of it?
>
> As I understand it, that's all they're asking for. But Debian Policy
> says "follow the FHS", and {/usr,}/libexec doesn't. And some non-Hurd
> Debian developers are sufficiently enamored of the concept of Policy as
> universally applicable without exception that it feels like anti-Hurd
> discrimination to some people.
>
> That's the scorecard as far as I've been able to discern, anyway.
>
--
Eric Dorland <dorland@lords.com>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+
G e h! r- y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
pgpWI9SZ6ZV1l.pgp
Description: PGP signature