On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 11:27:49PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 02:10:27AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > PROPOSAL
> > ========
> >
> > (1) That section 3.1 of the policy be rewritten replacing every
> > reference to "FSSTND" by the equivalent reference to "FHS".
> >
> > (2) That a period of consultation on -devel and/or -policy during the
> > course of the implementation of this change will determine which,
> > if any, exceptions to the FHS are required. This will form a new
> > section 3.1.3 of policy, whose exact wording obviously cannot be
> > proposed at this stage.
>
> YES, PLEASE! By all means I second this. Even if all packages cannot
> move to FHS right away we need to do our best to become compatible with
> the FHS. This will be required for LSB compliance anyway, so we might as
> well get going on it.
second seconded.
Too bad we load QA with another burden by this ;P. Oh well, everyone who
doesn't comply just gets a 'normal' bug...
--
..Aaron Van Couwenberghe... [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Berlin: http://www.berlin-consortium.org
Debian GNU/Linux: http://www.debian.org
"...Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing..."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
