Re: [RFC] Package build time config for installation directories.
On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 02:24:35PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > 1) Non-FHS ports have problems concering the directories where things
> > get installed (they may not match linux directories). Darwin, FreeBSD,
> > Hurd and many others fall into this category.
>
> Could someone explain to me how a non-FHS 'Debian Port' is something we
> should even be thinking about doing? Is it really Debian anymore? It
> certianly isn't just a port..
>
> I wasn't aware the hurd Debian folks were actually going to do that within
> Debian..
FHS is mostly Linux biased. Hurd doesn't follow all of these conventions,
so there are some discrepancies (in glibc there are one or two, IIRC).
> > Problem created: These ports will probably never exist for Debian.
> > Porters will find it too difficult, or will come up with severely
>
> As I understand it we have to do it for ia64.. The ia64 box intel demo'd
> at OLS had a 64 bit userland and 32 bit libraries to support legacy apps,
> they were running a 32 bit acroreader for instance.
>
> Support for other OS's is a good reason I think, but then again - they are
> non-free..
Not neccessarily. Darwin is free, even if it has a proprietary system
built on top of it. But by far, a lot of the directories are different,
and some people want to install things in non-system directories (like
/usr/local) just to keep from crapping up the native system.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: