Bug#98291: being truthful about the FHS and us
- To: Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Bug#98291: being truthful about the FHS and us
- From: Chris Waters <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:59:11 -0700
- Message-id: <20010522105911.A6642@starless.xtnet>
- Reply-to: Chris Waters <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <20010522090357.A7854@polya>; from J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk on Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:03:57AM +0100
- References: <20010521114308.A8264@starless.xtnet> <20010522090357.A7854@polya>
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:03:57AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> How about: "must be compatible with and should comply with" the FHS.
> "should be compatible with and ideally should comply with").
Hmm, yes, my first draft actually read:
"The location of all installed files and directories must [should?]
be compatible with the Linux Filesystem Heirarchy Standard (FHS),
and should mostly comply with that document, except where doing so
would violate other terms of Debian policy or would be impractical
Then I thought "yeesh, that's an awkward sentence". Then I thought,
"my god, people are going to argue every subordinate clause there."
So, I thought I'd try a truly minimalist version, which is what I
Unfortunately, as aj pointed out, my original post was too minimal.
So, perhaps I'll return to my original, which incorporates both your
suggestion and aj's (and did so before either of you made them).
Clearly we're all pretty close to the same wavelength on this, so
maybe we can turn this into a real proposal soon. (Maybe with a
little more tweaking; I'd be happy with any suggestions to improve the
grammar and clarity.)
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
firstname.lastname@example.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or email@example.com | volcaniconi- standalone haiku