Bug#137172: debian-policy: FHS section requires updates
Chris Waters <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> The version does matter, because, as it happens, what you've got
> there is not the current version of policy. (I know, because I was
> the last one to touch that paragraph.)
My apologies. I was using the HTML version on www.debian.org:
which is quite different from the current revision located at:
I hope you'll agree that's a bit confusing.
> I think we discussed that at some point. I'm not sure why we decided
> not to do it, but since we're in a freeze, we probably should stick
> with what we have.
The Debian Policy is insufficiently specific about which FHS version
should be used and althogh it _implies_ one should use the latest,
"latest" is not what you want to specify in the policy document. Within
each named release of Debian (woody, potato, etc.), the ideal state is
all packages aim for the same FHS version. Debian appears to currently
be somewhere between 2.1 and 2.2, but is probably closer to FHS 2.2
compliance due to it being out for nearly a year, the availability of
the LSB-FHS test suite (which is against 2.2), and the word "latest"
being in Debian Policy.
The only place that FHS 2.1 seems to be implied is by the inclusion of
the FHS 2.1 HTML with Debian (which is linked from the policy document
along with the FHS web site which refers people to FHS 2.2). However,
version 2.2 should be used since it fixes some bugs and adds the
locations for some new directories that are sometimes needed these days:
I suspect Debian has been able to avoid many problems with FHS 2.1
vs. FHS 2.2 because the differences are minimal and mostly bug fixes
(perhaps mostly parts that you are ignoring anyway), but it would be
clearer to specify the version. I haven't exactly done an extensive
review of whre Debian is in terms of FHS 2.1 vs. FHS 2.2, but base-files
includes /var/local which was introduced in FHS 2.2.
If you need an HTML version of FHS 2.2 and the PDF just won't do, I
should be able to generate one for you sometime in the next week.
> But if you're no longer the contact, then I think that we do need to
> remove your name/email.
> I suppose this proposal needs a second....
Seconded. Can I do that? ;-)