[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Diffs between Linux, the Hurd and *BSD ports of Debian - constructiveness

On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 02:12:01AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > * The Hurd likes it a bit differently and more GNUish than GNU/Linux.
> >   For example, we have another top level directory /hurd that is not
> >   accounted for by the FHS, and we want to use /libexec at least for
> >   the Hurd itself.  That is not much of a huge technical issue, more
> >   like a policy conflict.  Will be taken up at the appropriate level
> >   (hopefully FHS).
> > 
> >   Policy issue without lot of technical difficulties, at least for us.
> >   The BSD people are going to care even more about /libexec if the
> >   runtime linker is installed there, I guess!
> Please excuse my stupidity, but I don't really understand why the
> /libexec breaks anything.

I think the FHS forbids new toplevel directories.

> If it is made to be a symlink to /lib/libexec
> (or something like this), this wouldn't break the FHS.

Actually, I think that then it would probably be a better idea to work
around this in the Debian packaging.  I am much more interested in making
solid proposals and see them implemented because they are worth it, rather
than trying to find loopholes in standards document.

BTW, there are no concrete proposals about how to actually treat /libexec in
Debian GNU/Hurd yet (well, there were lots of ideas, and yours is a new one,
but nothing that is actually on the table to be decided upon).  There is just
the general notion that this is an issue we have to address one way or the
other at some time.


`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann              GNU    http://www.gnu.org    marcus@gnu.org

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: