On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 03:21:36PM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote: > I like this! (Read: seconded) At long last, we may be able to do > away with the regular /usr/X11R6/bin vs. /usr/bin debate! That's the hope (one of several, anyway). > But if we accept this (which seems likely, given no objections > received so far), let's try to get the icon/pixmap/whatever issue > solved at the same time, because packages won't be permitted to use > /usr/X11R6/include/X11/* once this is accepted. I agree that we should get the image/pixmap business sorted out, but I don't agree that this policy forbids the usage of /usr/X11R6/include/X11. > > + The installation of files into subdirectories > > + <tt>/usr/X11R6/include/X11/</tt> and <tt>/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/</tt> > > + is permitted but discouraged; package maintainers should > > + determine if subdirectories of <tt>/usr/lib/</tt> and > > + <tt>/usr/share/</tt> can be used instead (symlinks from the X11R6 > > + directories to FHS-compliant locations is encouraged if the > > + program is not easily configured to look elsewhere for its > > + files). You and I seem to care more about the issue of icon/image paths than anyone else. :) Did we reach a consensus? -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | The noble soul has reverence for itself. branden@ecn.purdue.edu | -- Friedrich Nietzsche roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpc3PSF2abQ6.pgp
Description: PGP signature