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

Re: RFD: Essential packages, /, and /usr



On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 10:32:03AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 16-Jun-02, 15:30 (CDT), Chris Waters <xtifr@debian.org> wrote: 
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 02:17:12PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > It's not superfluous: if it's up to the developer, then they can move a
> > > binary from one to the other with no warning or discussion.
> > Not if that binary has its location specified in the FHS, which most
> > of the ones we're discussing do. 
> Manoj and Anthony have argued
> (to my understanding) that the current situation of "Early running
> init scripts can on on whatever the maintainers feel like putting in
> /bin:/sbin" is acceptable. To me, it seems sloppy.

"It seems sloppy" is a pretty poor argument for moving every binary not
specifically mentioned in the FHS into /usr and gratuitously breaking
any scripts that needed them where they are.

Are you sloppy when you exercise your judgement about your packages? Why
would you expect everyone else to be?

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.

     ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' 
                    -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif

Attachment: pgpLdSTXChvqE.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: