Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 08:34:20PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > > In fact, any program that uses getent(), may end up using modules, by way of
> > > pam.
> > >
> > > They all contain executable code.
> > All this is irrelevant to the decision where to put them.
> So, being irrelvant, they can go anywhere, as long as the tools can cope?
I don't understand what you mean. I did not say that files can go anywhere.
I said that it is irrelevant if a file contains executable code, and it is
irrelevant if a program that uses getent ends up using modules. I am not
sure what exactly you were trying to say by listing this, but it is surely
irrelevant in deciding where in the filesystem a specific file can go.
> So, in that regard, Debian policy says that hurd's translators should go in
> /lib/modules, as that's where kernel-specific extensions go.
Insisting on your wrong opinion doesn't make it less wrong.
> If GNU/hurd were an OS by itself, it could use /hurd. But, the Debian port
> should follow Debian Policy, and this says /lib/modules.
Debian Policy doesn't say anything about Hurd translators, because Hurd
translators are not covered by the FHS. We will amend the FHS to actually
say something about Hurd translators, and then Debian Policy will say
something about this, too.
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org email@example.com
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org firstname.lastname@example.org
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org