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

Bug#91260: Clarification: reclarifying the policy about X and the FHS



On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 03:38:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> * this makes an exemption for imake-using packages explicit, and explains
>   why in a footnote

I'd like to amend my proposal in one small respect:

+         The <tt>/usr/X11R6/</tt> directory
+         hierarchy should be regarded as deprecated for all packages
+         except the X Window System itself, and those which use the
+         <tt>imake</tt> program it provides, in which case the packages
+         may transition out of the <tt>/usr/X11R6/</tt> directory at the
+         maintainer's discretion.

The new part is the part after the last comma.

Seconders, please be aware of this change.

I'll note for the record that this proposal documents current practice.  I
have gathered from IRC that some maintainers are upset that this policy is
being "softened" after they have already transitioned.  This does not tell
them to move back to /usr/X11R6.  It simply recognizes the fact that many
imake-using packages have not made the transition yet, and:

* if they use imake correctly (no hard-coded paths in the source code),
  they don't need to; they get their transition for free whenever X makes
  it
* the package maintainer is free to install files to a more FHS compliant
  path in the package build process, e.g., with dh_movefiles
* there are a great many unfiled bugs that would be of serious severity if
  the existing policy goes unamended

Package maintainers who have already made the transition out of /usr/X11R6
have my personal thanks for doing so.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson             |   It's not a matter of alienating authors.
Debian GNU/Linux                |   They have every right to license their
branden@debian.org              |   software however we like.
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |   -- Craig Sanders, in debian-devel

Attachment: pgpHULhKON24G.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: