Re: FHS compliance (was Re: Intent To Split: netbase)
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 02:32:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Actually, according to the FHS in literally translates to "partially
> compliant".
Ah, ok. I must have been thinking of another standard. (I'm tempted
to say, a Real standard, but I'll be nice). In that case, I think
your suggestion is just jim dandy, and I withdraw my criticism.
(I can't withdraw my objection because I didn't actually object.:-)
[re: a hypothetical debian package with files in /opt/package and
symlinks outside]
> I thought we just referred to the FHS to say where files should go,
> generally. Could you point out the place in debian-policy that says this
> isn't legitimate? I may be just blind.
Well, I originally looked in the FHS, and I didn't see anything really
forbidding it there (although the symlinks part may be dubious). And
now I've looked in policy, I don't see anything there either. So you
may have accidentally stumbled across a genuine hole in our policy.
This is an entirely separate issue, but it might be worth
investigating. Or maybe we can just proclaim that it's legal, but
anyone foolish enough to actually *do* it will be pelted with raw eggs
at the next Debian gathering. :-)
> And things like having /sbin/ifconfig physically located in /sbin rather
> than a symlink somewhere *is* required for FHS compliance, but not for
> FHS compatability, umm:
I'm was never saying that we should *merely* strive for
compatibility. I just thought that we might be out of line if we
claimed compliance when we weren't fully compliant. I still think the
best approach might be to say "must be FHS compliant except where
explictly forbidden by Debian policy." Or something like that.
cheers
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
| this .signature file.
Reply to: