Re: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.0 (fwd)

[Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@pathname.com>]

> Linus in particular (according to a now FAQ for Debian, but I don't
> have a copy or a URL to point you at) says that there is no need for
> the symlinks from /usr/include to /usr/src/linux any more, and that
> Debian's way of including the kernel headers from a known stable
> kernel, with the libc development package, is correct. Similarly part
> of the promise for libc6 (if I understand correctly) was that there is
> much less dependence on the kernel headers, and so there should be no
> need for the symlinks.

1) libc6 is generally not being used by anyone except developers
2) there is no known stable 2.1 kernel (some non-developers are
   using 2.1, especially for SMP systems) nor is there no known
   stable 2.0 kernel.  (Defining stable as "severe bug free" and
   considered reliable for a significant period of time after
   release.)
 
> Since this policy has existed for some time and is not exactly a
> secret, I was surprised to see it in the NEW fhs.

Well, this sort of thing is why we will probably have a version 2.1.
We can remove or modify the section in the annex if it conflicts
with recommended practice.  I'll look into it.

Dan