Re: FHS or FSSTND or NOTHING

[Joel Klecker <jk@espy.org>]

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
> includes).

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>