Re: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.0 (fwd)
On Sun, Nov 16, 1997 at 11:37:40PM -0800, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes:
>
> > But I was shocked to see the Linux annex specify that
> > /usr/include/{asm,linux} should be a symlink -> /usr/src/linux/...
> > Are we in danger of being labelled FHS-compatible (instead of
> > FHS-compliant) because we do what libc6 and Linus both recommend?
>
> Gosh, what do libc6 and Linus recommend?
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.
Since this policy has existed for some time and is not exactly
a secret, I was surprised to see it in the NEW fhs.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt, StudIEAust hamish@debian.org, hmoffatt@mail.com
Student, computer science & computer systems engineering. 3rd year, RMIT.
http://hamish.home.ml.org/ (PGP key here) CPOM: [***** ] 59%
If you get a wrong answer, multiply by the page number. Especially in CO305.
Reply to: