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

Re: Bug#98291: being truthful about the FHS and us

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.





Attachment: pgp2e0NiLNAmp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: