Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The problem I have is with the attitude that Policy can be ignored > for the Hurd port because it's a different architecture, or that > Policy should be amended to allow libexec as a Hurd-specific > extension.
Nobody is suggesting that Policy be ignored for the Hurd port. But how policy should look for the Hurd is one of the things that is "in development". Having the Hurd port exactly conform to policy is something that must certainly bu true at the *end* of the porting process. But there is no particular advantage to insisting it be true at every step along the way. One of the things that has to adapt to make the port a success is policy itself. And--before you jump on it--of course any such policy amendments need to be discussed in the normal policy amendment way. In the case of particular directories and FHS compliance, policy will mostly not even be involved, since the right thing to do there is to have the FHS contain a proper Hurd annex. That's a question which is more or less between the FHS team and the Hurd developers and users (where the latter group is *not* the same thing as the Debian Hurd porting team.) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
