On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:29:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 06:47:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > This proposal seems fairly dubious to me: there's been a fair degree of
> > thought put into the FHS and where files should be located (/usr/share
> > vs /usr), eg, and many of the benefits of that layout aren't achieved
> > with mere compatability.
> Well, you're the (acting) release manager, you wanna be the one to yank apt
> from the distribution for not being FHS-compliants?
Not every bug's release critical.
Just as all the packages that stick documentation in /usr/doc aren't going
to be pulled today, neither will apt.
Whether this means the "must" wrt the FHS compliance should be a "should"
is another matter.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgpQ9kUFSD6kp.pgp
Description: PGP signature