On Sun, May 30, 1999 at 02:23:44AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > I guess that this last comment is the reason that this proposal has > been marked as stalled. I would suggest that we plan to adopt the FHS > anyway, pating attention to the changes which will appear in FHS 2.1, > as available in the pre-release version. This is a message which Joel > Klecker posted to -devel on the subject. I would strongly suggest > that we go for the FHS anyway, bearing in mind that we will not need > to move from /var/lib to /var/state or /var/spool/mail to /var/mail. > But if we have any intention of adopting the FHS for potato or woody, > we really ought to get moving on it. > > And do we have any ideas yet of how to handle architecture-dependent > docs? I would suggest having them in /usr/lib/<package>/examples with > a symlink from /usr/share/doc/<package>/examples. Any thoughts on > this possibility? > > I also sense that fine details of problems with the current FHS will > only appear with time once we begin to migrate towards it; our > experience with adopting the FHS will help to influence its > development. > > Let's go for it! > I agree. We need to make FHS the goal. Declare officially that it's policy. We don't have to solve every possible problem before we even decide to use it. If we waited until all problems were solved, there'd be nothing in Debian because everything has bugs, security holes, flaws, etc. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. ========================================================================= * http://benham.net/index.html <gecko@benham.net> <>< * * -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * <gecko@debian.org> <secretary@debian.org> <lintian-maint@debian.org> * * <webmaster@debian.org> <gecko@fortunet.com> <webmaster@spi-inc.org> * =========================================================================
Attachment:
pgpXzyIPzU_FQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature