On Wednesday 31 of December 2008 17:28:09 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:21:45 +0100 > > Maciej Mrozowski <reave...@poczta.fm> wrote: > > On Wednesday 31 of December 2008 16:57:12 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Gentoo does not comply with the FHS. It was established a long time > > > ago that FHS is considered silly and any compliance is merely > > > because the FHS people somehow managed to avoid screwing that > > > particular area up. > > > > Well, we're not here to deliberate about people's taste in FHS > > silliness manner. FHS, being standard de-facto, following the > > definition of the word "standard" as something accepted by majority > > and thus promised to be respected. Not justified standard violations > > or justified by "I don't like it" or "It's silly" should be repressed > > and some good standards should be explicitly forced in my opinion. > > Otherwise, inconsistency will create the feel of mess. I believe we > > can agree on this. > > You could use the same argument to say "Gentoo must switch to RPM > because LSB says so".
No, I would be invalid argumentation - I know it - you know it, so let's not continue with discussion of this kind until one side will EOT seeing it's pointless, while the other side will secretly announce epic victory ;) It's not the point to blindly follow freedesktop or LSB - the point is to consistently follow one standard across whole distribution - if it's FHS - fine, if not - fine as well - but *only one* at a time. That being said I'd rather propose to force Gentoo news to comply to FHS as FHS is the most commonly used file/directory layout in Gentoo. cheers in new year -- regards MM
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
