Re: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.0 (fwd)
On Mon, Nov 17, 1997 at 12:09:05AM -0800, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> > 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.)
Of course; but Debian has this policy on libc5 too, and it seems to work
just fine. Obviously drivers need to be aware of the correct location
(those not provided with the kernel, that is) but most application software
doesn't. I don't see your point regarding linux 2.1 though.
Thanks for your reply. Regarding possible correction in FHS 2.1,
I'm just surprised this didn't come up in the discussion for FHS 2.0.
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%
The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. --Bohr
Reply to: