Bug#98291: being truthful about the FHS and us
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:17:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns 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.
> > (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?
Hurd doesn't use /usr. (Note that it's no longer called "Linux FHS",
just "FHS".) I can't think of other examples offhand.
Questions about RC-ness here are a bit fuzzy: packages which still use
/usr/X11R6 may be in contravention of the FHS and of the X part of
Debian policy, but I wouldn't regard it as RC. On the other hand,
packages using /opt or putting configuration files outside of /etc
would probably be considered RC. So I reckon that the RC-ness
question will take some common sense on a case-by-case basis.
Thankfully, we're all human here, so that shouldn't be too much of a
> (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?)
(a) is not an issue: if the FHS doesn't talk about it, then we aren't
doing anything against it. (b) is explicit, as you say.
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/