On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 06:57:19PM -0500, Thomas Smith wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:59:11AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > > 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. > > [or] > > > "should be compatible with and ideally should comply with"). This can't be folded into one clause? What's the reason for complying with the FHS not being sufficient? > How about: > > The location of all installed files and directories must be compatible with the > Linux Filesystem Heirarchy Standard (FHS), and should be compliant with it, > except as noted. Locations should not comply with the FHS where a violation is > mandated by Debian policy, or would be impractical or unreasonable. I don't particularly like the last part of that sentance. Unless it is mandated by D-policy, it should comply, right? I don't believe there should be a case that isn't in either policy. Regards, Edward. -- http://www.pcug.org.au/~edlang/
Attachment:
pgp2e0NiLNAmp.pgp
Description: PGP signature