Re: New filesystem standard - do we want it ?

[Andreas Jellinghaus <aj@dungeon.inka.de>]

please split hamm into two distributions :
hamm/unstable and hamm-unstable/fhs-unstable (maybe you have better names).

we should have a good way to seperate new fhs compilant packages and old
fsstnd packages. having two distributions will make life easier,
and i don't think that it is a big deal.

the new diretory sheme (hamm-fhs/) should not contain symlinks to old
.deb files : dpkg-ftp can handle mixing distributions, no need to do it with
symlinks. this will only confuse people.

if some files are not converted to fhs : they don't apear in hamm-fhs.
we could add them later to hamm-fhs/contrib, if necessary.

this way we will not release the hamm/ tree with old fsstnd packages,
but hamm-fhs as new distribution, ehwn the time comes.

this idea came to me with the libc5/libc6 problems :
if we had two distributions for libc5/libc6, it would be very easy to
release an unstable libc5 version and an unstable libc6 version (only
for the maintainers who want to do that), and the whole management would
be easier.

for libc5/libc6 it's too late, but with fhs we could run into similiar
problems, and with two distributions we could manage this far better.

it's only a techical issue, that we have two diretory trees : 
one for old/fsstnd files, and one for new/fhs files.

comments ?

andreas