Re: where do NEW packages go?
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.
Well, but GNU != Debian. Debian follows Debian Policy, not the GNU Coding
Standard. If you want Debian to follow the GNU Coding Standard, go to
debian-vote and issue an amendment to throw away Debian Policy (or any
part thereof) and replace it with the GNU Coding Standard. If you get the
majority of Debian's developers to agree, then we'll follow the GNU Coding
Standard; until that time, Hurd developers need to follow Debian Policy
wherever possible, even if it's braindead (which I don't think it is, but
just in case).
> I don't think the FHS is a good standard
That's your good right. Still, Debian uses FHS, so Debian GNU/Hurd will
also be FHS-compliant. Else it won't be Debian GNU/Hurd. What's so hard
I can understand that certain packages, like inet-utils for example,
cannot be ported to Debian GNU/Hurd and thus need to be packaged
separately. But that does not go for the filesystem. Debian GNU/Hurd
will still be Debian; If GNU doesn't like that, then GNU must make
it's own Hurd-distribution, and not try to change Debian.
> 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.
Simply because libexec isn't FHS-compliant. You knew that already.
wouter dot verhelst at advalvas dot be
"Human knowledge belongs to the world"
-- From the movie "Antitrust"
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org