[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] Package build time config for installation directories.

On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Marcus Brinkmann 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 think Debian is not defined by the FHS, but the other way round:
> We make good use of the FHS, because it solves a problem we have to
> solve anyway, and it is a reasonable standard. We try to achieve

Well, when I was saying 'non-FHS' I was trying to convey a broader sense
of non conformance with Debian policy (which does currently include most
of the FHS) The fact that indivudual packages may have specific reasons to
not follow policy and the FHS is largely a confined issue.

A *port* however should not be going around changing things willy nilly. A
Debian GNU/HURD system should be very close to a Debian GNU/Linux which
would be even closer to a Debian GNU/BSD (due to their more similar
kernel design).

I know the HURD people want to do interesting and innovative things. IMHO
that is a project for FSF GNU/HURD - and isn't really suitable for
Debian's UNIX-Like distribution, which HURD is a kernel port of currently. 

> We have two more root-level directories: /hurd (for translators,
> which are special programs which can be invoked manually, are
> installed manually, but usually invoked by the system).

I don't see that this would be a problem solved by Ben's proposal since
this is HURD specific used only by HURD packages.

> And we use /libexec (which is IMHO a good idea), which is 
> something that could be changed if really, really necessary.  >

Frankly I'd drop this. <shrug> It is against Debian policy and for
instance if someone were to file a bug that APT doesn't use libexec I'd
promptly close it.


Reply to: