Re: /usr/share/doc: some new proposals
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net> writes:
Chris> There is more involved with FHS than I think many people
Chris> realize. We have a fair amount of work to do just with the
Chris> stuff that is obvious *and* non-contentious, like
Chris> /usr/share/man and /usr/share/info. I
That is already policy.
Chris> haven't heard *anyone* discuss the move from /var/lib/games to
Chris> /var/games either, which is going to require a bit of work.
What is wrong with individual packages moving to /var/games as
part of FHS compliance? What are the problems you envisage?
Chris> Potato is *not* going to be FHS compliant, so why pretend?
I think you are labouring under a misapprehension here. No one
is saying that potato shall be FHS compliant. We would be hard put to
make woody compliant, I think, if we start now. But I think moving
towards FHS comliance is important, and can be done.
Chris> The /usr/doc issue is big, but it's simple and consistent, and
Chris> will yield to brute force measures *somehow*. Let's make sure
Chris> we have the more subtle, inobvious, and tricky bits under
Chris> control before worrying about it.
Which are?
manoj
--
oh okay. my mistake. Yafcot:atj(*), mark Yet another fool coming
over this: according to joey mark@mail.novare.net
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: