On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 12:10:40AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > I submitted the following bug report a while ago, and Manoj has just > closed it as we have not yet agreed to go with the FHS. [..] Then obviously we need to agree to move toward it. Many key parts of Debian are already progressing that direction and a number of packages are already moving. My latest test build of epic4 uses FHS compliant file locations since they are used upstream anyway. No harm in this that I can see since the rest of the system (or portions of it that matter) already support this. Not to mention my redesign of asclassic which I am building to be more or less FHS compliant "upstream"... I'm still working on the best way to handle this, I'm guessing a set of autoconf macros or something. On a system which is able to handle FHS paths, they will be used. > My questions are: > > (1) Are we intending to move towards following the FHS? > [.. Packages are already moving to FHS anyway..] > > If we decide to do so, then I believe that we should make this > clear as soon as possible and suggest a plan of action, as this > will require recompilation of every package (especially given the > /usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc move). [This will probably be fairly > easy for debhelper-dependent builds, as a trivial change in > dh_install* will make the required changes happen automatically.] > To decide this close to the freeze will be asking for a disaster > and severly delayed freeze, IMHO. > > If we are, do we need a vote etc. on this issue? If this discussion ends in a solid proposal, I'll second it. I think potato is migrating toward FHS compliance which is a good thing. man is already working with it. info I think is being worked on still. I don't know about /usr/doc yet, but I suspect we need to deal with /usr/doc/package/examples first. > (2) If we are, can we please add the FHS to the debian-policy package, > along with some indication (although probably not yet in the > policy itself) of these intentions. I would propose this be done right away. Even if we aren't actually using it yet, it should be present for the purposes of discussion and reference. If not in the policy package, at least in a seperate package. > (3) If we are not, which would seem strange, how are we going to deal > with the current mess, which is neither FSSTND nor FHS compliant? I expect we are likely to have at least one release which is not FHS compliant yet but no longer quite FSSTND compliant either. If we do this in a seamless manner I think nobody will want to kill us or anything. -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- <stu> apt: !bugs <apt> !bugs are stupid <dpkg> apt: are stupid? what's that? <apt> dpkg: i don't know <dpkg> apt: Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder... <apt> i already had it that way, dpkg.
Attachment:
pgpMgNWIxpsdN.pgp
Description: PGP signature