There is a new version of the FHS in the pipeline, as is being
discussed on the FHS mailing list. I am wary, though, given our
experiences of previous transitions, of automatically adopting it
without due care and consideration.
I would like to suggest, therefore, that policy should specify the
version of the FHS that we intend to comply with, and that we should
not move to new versions until this list has discussed any issues
which might arise from such a move and we are happy that we are able
to make the move.
What do people think of this idea? The only change it will require in
policy is specifying "FHS version 2.1" in place of "FHS" when we
discuss it. (Exact diff will be supplied if needed.)
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
