Re: Other FHS issues (was Re: /usr/share/doc: some new proposals)
On 5 Aug 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
> Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > (I think the issue was with the /usr/doc->/usr/share/doc move, not
> > with FHS compliance.
>
> Yes, I'm trying to see the big picture, though. Why are we moving to
> /usr/share/doc? FHS. Well, then, what about the FHS, are we close?
> No. So the only thing that makes /usr/share/doc stand out is that
> it's more visible than other FHS issues. It's not more important, nor
> more difficult, except insofar as it affects every package. In
> package-by-package terms, it's probably one of the *easiest* changes
> required by the FHS. (No patching of binaries required.)
>
> So, *why* are we in such a *panic* about /usr/share/doc now? (This is
> a rhetorical question, in case it's not obvious.) :-)
I ask myself the same question, but maybe not in rethorical sense.
--
"b7f8114714f5bae8cd78471dc2e3ec1d" (a truly random sig)
Reply to: