On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:30:00PM -0700, Chris Waters 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. > Very true. On the other hand, the mere *presence* of /usr/doc is an > FHS violation. Therefore, if policy requires compliance *at this > point*, it would be self-contradictory. We cannot have symlinks in > /usr/doc *and* claim compliance.
This could be fixed by simply saying "Debian packages should by fully compliant with the FHS, except where otherwise indicated in this document", or similar. > If we've learned *anything* from the /usr/doc debacle, it should be > that we need to take things a step at a time. Let us mandate FHS > compatibility for now, make *sure* we've achieved that, and *then* > begin to mandate compliance. We aren't even compatible at the moment: there are many packages for which /usr/doc/<package> exists, but /usr/share/doc/<package> doesn't. > Any other route can only lead to madness (and angry users). Note that the requirement of compatability would leave open the possibility of packages installing all their files in /opt/foo-1.2.3/, and maintaining symlinks from the rest of the system. I don't think this should be considered policy compliant. 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
pgpNc47HVIQJ1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
