Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd
On 22 May 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Emile van Bergen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Agreed. It's just a pity that the FHS will probably soon have added
> > /hurd without anybody ever having thought about some good, *general*
> > criteria when to add separate directories for binaries, which really
> > could have been worthwile for reasons also brought up by Alfred, and
> > that we've learned nothing new, just formalised existing practice for a
> > single upstream OS.
> What makes you think that Debian is the group who should be telling
> FHS what the "good general criteria" are to be?
You're reasoning based on authority *again*. Why? Nobody is telling
anybody to do anything.
However, the FHS itself does not currently define such criteria AFAIK,
and I assume the people in charge of it are wise enough to consider any
*good* suggestion for "good general criteria", whether originated by
Thomas Bushnell, BSG, or J. Random Hacker, yours truly, or a collection
of people who happened to be on debian-hurd and debian-devel at a
particular moment in time.
> The fact that it is not on topic for this mailing list does not mean
> it isn't on topic anywhere.
I'm not calling it off-topic. I do not run this mailing list, I'm not
representing any people involved in Debian. It's not my call. I'm just
someone trying to contribute some of his brain-cycles to the issues
involving Debian, the Hurd, and the FHS. Nothing more, nothing less.
E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | email@example.com
tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 | http://www.e-advies.info
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com