Re: where do NEW packages go?
Chris Lawrence <lawrencc@debian.org> writes:
> Debian shouldn't say no, which makes all this /libexec and /hurd
> business more confusing than anything else. But this ought to at
> least be documented in policy, so someone doesn't come down the pike 2
> years later and say "The Hurd is violating the FHS" without something
> to point to.
The only obstacle here is that the FHS lacks a Hurd-specific annex.
Once we thought it wouldn't be necessary, or we would have put it in
long ago. But we were wrong, and so we are now working out what the
Hurd-specific annex will be, and it will land in the FHS.
("We" in the above paragraph refers to the Hurd core developers and
associated interested parties, and has no particular connection to the
Debian Hurd porting team, except for the presence of some overlap in
personnel.)
> Now, if the Hurd group wants Debian to adopt /libexec globally, *then*
> it would be something that needs to be done to amend the FHS.
I don't think the Debian Hurd group needs to have any opinion one way
or the other about such a question. For various historical reasons,
the Debian Hurd group includes a fair number of libexec fans. But
it's a separate question entirely.
> Again, if /libexec or /hurd is going to only be a port-only thing,
> there's no problem (at least from my perspective), but if this is an
> effort to convert the Debian project to using libexec *globally* (not
> just on the ports that need it to function) then it needs to be aired
> through the policy process.
/hurd (as the name suggests) is only sensible on the Hurd. It is
inherently port-specific.
/libexec is what it is. I don't think anybody has an interest in
forcing the use of /libexec on anyone.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: