[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


At 00:18 -0500 1999-03-27, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 1999 at 07:33:25PM -0800, Jim Lynch wrote:
Fabrizio Polacco <fpolacco@icenet.fi> said in the message identified as
<[🔎] 19990323171351.D2511@none>:
> Not all of FHS will be used.

say WHAT?? Part of Debian's stability is owed to its STRICT adherence to=
standards such as fsstnd and fhs.
Why would Debian not use all of fhs?

Ian Jackson doesn't like it, and he carries a lot of clout around here.
(Deservedly so, but I don't really know the reasons for his objections to
FHS -- IIRC, he doesn't like all the subdirectories of /var that the FHS

IWJ has only objected to what he sees as a gratuitous renaming (/var/lib -> /var/state). For the record, I think he is wrong. I am strongly opposed to deciding not to adopt the FHS completely because one person doesn't like a single point, no matter who that person is. LSB compliance will imply FHS compliance, and it would be a disaster if Debian was not LSB compliant.
Joel Klecker (aka Espy)                     <URL:http://web.espy.org/>
<URL:mailto:jk@espy.org>                  <URL:mailto:espy@debian.org>

Reply to: