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.
> (Here I'm using RFC meanings of must and should; if this is a problem
> at the moment, try "should be compatible with and ideally should
> comply with").
Is there an example of a case where it's worthwhile being compatible,
but not worthwhile complying?
(The exceptions we allow are cases where (a) the FHS doesn't really say
anything useful, like where CVS repositories should go, and (b) /usr/doc,
which we're aiming for compliance with anyway. Are there more?)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpIVXgIFDvVr.pgp
Description: PGP signature