Re: where do NEW packages go?
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 01:16:28PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 10:21:33AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:
>
> > > However, the Hurd port is asking for Policy to be
> > > *relaxed* [...]
>
> > NO, the Debian GNU/Hurd porting team has *NOT* asked for any such
> > relaxation.
>
> Sorry. I mean to say, this is effectively what has been requested on
> behalf of the Hurd port.
I would be careful about this; some folks raving about things or even just
'vehemently discussing' it... is not the same as an 'official' request from
the Hurd port (or the NetBSD port, or... etc)
Some of the well-known names have said that they intend to go through the
FHS path to amend Policy (since Policy includes the FHS by reference), and
this seems like a reasonable way to do things.
I support libexec, yes (at least, as /usr/libexec to complement /usr/lib,
I'm not sure if there's enough data to warrant /libexec to copmlement /lib
in turn); I think it's a Good Idea. As such, I think that the right place
to start is with the FHS, because I think it's a good idea for everyone,
not just the BSD freaks or the Hurd freaks. :)
(Not an invitation to re-open that flamewar; just a summary of my position
and why I, as a NetBSD person, *haven't* asked for a Policy change or gone
to work on writing an amendment for it)
> Or, better, any plan to reintroduce /usr/libexec into the FHS would
> require Policy to be relaxed (de facto if not de jure) to allow files
> to be placed in a directory that was not allowed before, as well as to
> accomodate a suitable lib -> libexec transition period.
It seems like Policy would pick this up if the FHS itself was amended, by
default. Now, since as we all know, Policy Isn't A Beating Stick (tm), the
migration to libexec, while a Good Thing in principle (if and when it makes
it into the FHS) would need to be treated much like the doc -> share stuff
that we've been working on for... two releases now, is it?
Since it doesn't fundamentally *break* anything to have stuff in /lib, even
if you agree /libexec is the right place for it, it's definitely something
to be lenient about with the timescale, IMO. (And, honestly, it would only
work if the FHS is more specific about what belongs where; arguments about
whether libc is a binary or a library aside)
--
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: