Re: FHS - transition

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On 17 Oct 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:

> Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
> [...]
> > They are not just "things that would be nice to have implemented"
> > (wishlist). We really *need* to have them fixed in the near future.
> > Otherwise we will never move to FHS.
> 
> Woah there, one step at a time.  I'd like to see (a) a proposed
> appendix to the Packaging Manual about handing the FSSTD->FHS issue,
> or else a separate file in the packaging-manual package; and finally
> (b) general consensus, i.e., "this is the best way to do it" on (a);
> and finally, (c) a proposed policy amendment.
> 
> Only once all that is done, can we start filing serious bugs.

Ok, this sounds very reasonable to me.

Clearly we need a general consensus, and clearly we do not have such
thing (yet).

Thanks.

-- 
 "892ac5187008c4c2822d384603ab119c" (a truly random sig)