Re: libexec in glibc
email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
> > email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> > > 1) What gets added to the FHS is not a Debian decision,
> > > 2) Debian released architectures need to conform to FHS, and
> > > 3) Ports still being worked on don't need to treat (2) as their top
> > > priority, especially when they expect FHS will change in relevant
> > > ways before the port is released.
> > If top-level directories are allowed to be added by the people that
> > make a distribution then the whole discussion is quite irrelevant.
> What? The people who make a distribution (in this case) are Debian,
> and Debian doesn't get to create top-level directories; which everyone
I really would like to know who everyone is here, there are already a
couple questions about Daniel's response to me on the FHS list about
not a distribution is not allowed to add root-level directories.
For example, the FHS wants to introduce an /srv directory, but systems
must start using it before it gets an entry in the FHS. Which would
mean that all systems have to break compliance with the FHS before
being able to be compliant.
> Moreover, Debian has already decided that it *won't* create top-level
> directories beyond the FHS as long as there are "other places" to put
> the same things, so adding a "you can make new top level directories"
> sentence to FHS wouldn't change things.
If Debian has already decided that, then please point me to this
decision, as I cannot find anything in the Debian Policy Manual (I
only took a brief look, so maybe I missed something)
Alfred M. Szmidt