On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:29:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 06:47:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > This proposal seems fairly dubious to me: there's been a fair degree of > > thought put into the FHS and where files should be located (/usr/share > > vs /usr), eg, and many of the benefits of that layout aren't achieved > > with mere compatability. > Well, you're the (acting) release manager, you wanna be the one to yank apt > from the distribution for not being FHS-compliants?
Not every bug's release critical. Just as all the packages that stick documentation in /usr/doc aren't going to be pulled today, neither will apt. Whether this means the "must" wrt the FHS compliance should be a "should" is another matter. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and working code.'' -- Dave Clark
pgpIL42Ba83Us.pgp
Description: PGP signature
