Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd
On 20 May 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> It's been answered several times over. You may not like the answers.
> You mostly want to say "look, if you don't change FHS at all, then
> there would be a place to put it".
>
> Jeroen was trying to say, I think, that if FHS said "put everything in
> one directory", then this could also be made to work. But it would be
> a bad FHS.
>
> Since none of these lists is the appropriate place to discuss what FHS
> should be, it's totally off topic.
>
> But you have gotten several answers to your question. The answer is
> not "because there is no place in FHS to put it", and you seem to only
> want an answer of that form. The fact that the answer is not of that
> form does not, however, mean that you have not been given an answer.
No, I do not want an answer of that form.
I do not care about /hurd, /lib/hurd, /libexec/hurd. That is just a location.
What I want to know, is why can't existing locations be used for what hurd
developers want to place in /hurd.
I want the *reasons*. And, long papers are not the answer. Short, simple,
point by point explanations for why a *new* directory(whereever it ends up
being) is needed.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: