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
problem ;-)
> (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
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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/
Reply to: