Re: [RFC] Package build time config for installation directories.
On 06-Nov-00, 10:22 (CST), Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > Ben, I don't really see the point of all of us spending time to support
> > non-Debian systems. I don't have much interest in seeing dpkg take over
> > the universe. The point of having standards such as the FHS is to avoid
> > this kind of kludgery.
> >
>
> Please reread my original post. Two of the three cases involve actual Debian
> ports (either present or future).
Ok, I did.
1. "Non-FHS ports". This seems to me a contradiction in terms. Marcus
has weighed in with "but HURD *is* FHS", and I don't see why other ports
can't be as well, especially as HURD is the least unix like of the
listed OS's. If it can't be made FHS compliant, then perhaps it's not an
appropriate target for a Debian port. What's next, and NT "port"?
2. "Overlay systems" (e.g. 64bit ports) Ok, this one I see, but it would
seem to affect primarily libraries, right? And aren't they going to have
to detect architecture and special case stuff besides directory names
(e.g. compiler switches, etc.) anyway? So this doesn't help them all
that much.
3. "Third-party stuff". Don't care.
> Requiring developers to accept technically competent and reasonable
> patches to enable this is something I think should be required (e.g.
> if someone files a bug that correctly solves this issue, you either
> accept the patch, or leave the bug open at normal severity).
Fair enough.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
Reply to: