Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 10:30:28PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 07:11:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Now if you want to point out that FHS doesn't mention /hurd and so
> > using it is in violation of FHS, then you are quite right.
>
> No, then he's wrong. I don't know about your copy of the FHS, but mine
> (version 2.2 dated May 23, 2001) doesn't forbid a distribution to add
> directory.
Looking at version 2.2 at http://www.pathname.com/fhs/, section 3.1, it
explicitly says that "software must never create or require special
files or subdirectories in the root directory", over and above those
specified in the standard. As a result, my reading suggests that
distributions including such software aren't compliant with the current
version of the FHS. Which part are you looking at?
> It's just interesting to see that nobody has even noticed this, but of
> course I'm the clueless flamebait here, it's just that I have read the
> FHS carefully more than once while writing that GNU/Hurd specific
> annex and checking where Debian GNU/Hurd differs from the FHS at the
> moment. It's not that I don't know where I am talking about.
>
> I suggest people should read it carefully before trying to discuss
> these things and then they will even find out that it's amateurish and
> confusing like hell. Don't try to even try to reply without reading it
> carefully as I'm not going to waste time anymore teaching somebody to
> read.
Notwithstanding this, and I have read it somewhat carefully, I'd be
interested to hear chapter and verse. It's clear that you have a
particular piece of text in mind. (I have no interest in bashing the
Hurd for not conforming to a document that clearly hasn't taken account
of it yet, by the way - that would be pointless and, as tb has pointed
out, off-topic.)
> Keeping in mind that the FHS is a document written for proprietary
> third-party LSB packages and it specifies what those packages can find
> where and where they should install things helped me a lot with
> understanding it.
The FHS isn't the LSB, and it certainly claims (1.1) to be intended for
more than just creators of third-party packages. Debian doesn't use it
in the sense you say, as far as I know.
> Anyway, it's just useless trying to convince people on debian-devel
> that they are wrong because they don't want to listen anyhow.
I'm quite prepared to admit I'm wrong, but I'd like to hear references.
Are you?
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: