Luke Faraone wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 20:28, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote: > > If anything, they probably already know > > how Nix works and are expecting it to use those paths. There doesn't seem > > to be much drawback in this carefully-chosen lack of compliance with the > > FHS. > > > > I don't think it's worth writing an explicit Policy exception for this, > > since it's a single edge case. Instead, I think it's a good use of a > > Lintian override documenting what's going on. Obviously, if Nix becomes > > really popular in the long run, we can then go back and write this into > > Policy.
> This also is the case with snapd, which uses `/snap` in all other > distributions. We currently override it, but the issue was brought up > in a bug report.[1] I think the same arguments apply to both Nix and > snapd; but perhaps two is not yet numerous enough to warrant > documenting in policy. > [1]: http://bugs.debian.org/852199 How about three? Guix is basically a re-implementation of Nix in scheme. I took a quick stab at packaging it a while back... https://bugs.debian.org/850644 So the same logic that would apply for /nix and /snap would also apply to /gnu (Guix uses /gnu/store, like Nix's /nix/store). live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
