* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000229 00:33]: > Steve> Well, let's assume that I'm reading too much into this, and that the > Steve> Policy writers really intended that Debian be fully FHS compliant. > So the intent was that we shall try to be as compliant as > possible, without chaining ourselves the what is an evolving > standard.
If we wish Debian to be compliant with the FSB (is that right? The "lowest common denominator linux that companies can write software for") don't we need to follow the FHS pretty closely? Perhaps extra directories in /usr/local are no big deal. Keep in mind though, Steve posted this not out of some higher moral purpose, but because some poor user's /usr/local was deleted by a script somewhere. Maybe that script is non-compliant with Debian policy, but then maybe it is compliant. And, if that script complies with Debian policy, I think both policy and the script should change, so our users' /usr/local directories do not get deleted. $0.02. Flames welcome. Thoughful replies preferred. :) ObDisclaimer: IANADD(Y). :) -- Seth Arnold | http://www.willamette.edu/~sarnold/ Hate spam? See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ for help
