On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:30:00PM -0700, Chris Waters 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.
> Very true. On the other hand, the mere *presence* of /usr/doc is an
> FHS violation. Therefore, if policy requires compliance *at this
> point*, it would be self-contradictory. We cannot have symlinks in
> /usr/doc *and* claim compliance.
This could be fixed by simply saying "Debian packages should by fully
compliant with the FHS, except where otherwise indicated in this
document", or similar.
> If we've learned *anything* from the /usr/doc debacle, it should be
> that we need to take things a step at a time. Let us mandate FHS
> compatibility for now, make *sure* we've achieved that, and *then*
> begin to mandate compliance.
We aren't even compatible at the moment: there are many packages for
which /usr/doc/<package> exists, but /usr/share/doc/<package> doesn't.
> Any other route can only lead to madness (and angry users).
Note that the requirement of compatability would leave open the
possibility of packages installing all their files in /opt/foo-1.2.3/,
and maintaining symlinks from the rest of the system. I don't think this
should be considered policy compliant.
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:
pgpKZEfGRc93C.pgp
Description: PGP signature