FHS compliance (was Re: Intent To Split: netbase)
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 06:47:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:40:12AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > [Followups to debian-policy, please]
> > Let this message serve as policy proposal that we change the wording of
> > section 3.1.1 from "must comply" to "must be compatible".
> Policy proposals should be made by filing bugs against the debian-policy
> package.
> 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.
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. Any other route can only lead to madness
(and angry users).
If Branden makes a formal proposal, I will *definitely* second it --
if he doesn't, I'll propose it myself. Because what we have at
present seems to be a genuine bug -- a self-contradicting policy!
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: