Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd
Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> writes:
> Thomas> I think the answer to this question is: When FHS indicates they
> Thomas> should be added.
>
> Hmm. No, I don't think this is particularly helpful since, it seems,
> the FHS would only indicate that new directories be added if there is
> some reason to create a new directory. Then applying your answer would
> lead to a circular argument.
Huh? Not at all. The fact is that Debian tracks the FHS, and the
standards for adding a new top-level directory to Debian are "when the
FHS says so", since our practice has always been to track the FHS--and
we should certainly continue this.
The standards for amending the FHS, have nothing to do with Debian.
The FHS is a well-defined document, produced by certain people in a
particular process. Debian has always tracked the FHS by explicitly
saying in Policy that we aim to conform to such-and-such a version of
the FHS.
What the appropriate methods are for amending FHS is something that
Debian simply is not part of. We (Debian) don't run the world.
Debian has always viewed conformance with the FHS to be a very
important thing--a judgement that I wholeheartedly concur with.
(The LSB is a very different matter. I don't know where I stand on
that one.)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: