Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
Severity: normal
The current policy document does not make explicit that packages ought
to aim to be "compatible" with FHS, rather than "compliant".
Furthermore, the policy does not make explicit *which version* of FHS
one ought to follow. There is a passing reference to the fact that
a pre-release FHS is included in the policy document, but I believe
this information should be made more explicit. (When people have to
guess at what a policy document means, trouble is likely)
I am appending a diff containing my best shot at clarifying these
issues.
When I brought this issue up on debian-policy, Chris Waters suggested
that I point out the fact that current policy actively prevents packages
from being "FHS compliant" (a higher level of conformance than mere
"compatibility"). I have included a few lines about this in the actual
policy document, because it is important for new developers to
understand some of the rationale for settling on "mere" compatibility.
-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.2
Kernel Version: Linux riemann 2.2.13 #1 Sat Dec 4 21:48:34 EST 1999 i686 unknown
--- policy.sgml.orig Wed Mar 15 12:18:02 2000
+++ policy.sgml Wed Mar 15 12:23:25 2000
@@ -1085,9 +1085,17 @@
<heading>Linux File system Structure</heading>
<p>
- The location of all installed files and directories must
- comply with the Linux File system Hierarchy Standard
- (FHS). The latest version of this document can be found
+ Debian packages must be <em>fully compatible</em> with the
+ Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS). See the FHS document
+ for a precise definition of the term <em>fully
+ compatible</em>. Specific questions about following the
+ standard may be asked on <prgn>debian-devel</prgn>, or
+ referred to Daniel Quinlan, the FHS coordinator, at
+ <email>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</email>.</p>
+
+ <p>
+ To comply with current policy, a package must be compatible
+ with FHS Version pre-2.1 #2. This document can be found
alongside this manual or on
<url id="http://www.pathname.com/fhs/";>.<footnote>
<p>The Debian distribution currently distributes a draft
@@ -1095,20 +1103,39 @@
have changed between the currently released 2.0
version and the to-be-released 2.1 version.</p>
</footnote>
- Specific questions about following the standard may be
- asked on <prgn>debian-devel</prgn>, or referred to Daniel
- Quinlan, the FHS coordinator, at
- <email>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</email>.</p></sect1>
+
+ <p>
+ In the FHS document, <em>compatibility</em> is the lesser
+ of two levels of conformance; systems that follow the FHS
+ more strictly are said to be <em>fully compliant</em>.
+ Being compliant is a worthy goal, and packagers should
+ strive for it, as much as possible. Current policy
+ prevents most packages from being compliant with the FHS
+ at present, unfortunately. The list of current obstacles
+ includes:
+ <list>
+ <item>
+ <tt>/usr/doc</tt> (see <ref id="usrdoc">)
+ is not allowed by FHS
+ </item>
+ <item>
+ <tt>/usr/local</tt> stub directories (described in the
+ following section) are not allowed by FHS
+ </item>
+ </list>
+ </p>
+
+ </sect1>
<sect1>
<heading>Site-specific programs</heading>
<p>
- As mandated by the FHS no package should place any
- files in <tt>/usr/local</tt>, either by putting them in
- the file system archive to be unpacked by <prgn>dpkg</prgn>
- or by manipulating them in their maintainer scripts.</p>
+ As mandated by the FHS, no package should place any
+ files in <tt>/usr/local</tt>. Do not include any files in
+ the file system archive to be unpacked by <prgn>dpkg</prgn>,
+ and do not manipulate files in the maintainer scripts.</p>
<p>
However, the package should create empty directories below
