Re: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.0 (fwd)

Bdale writes: > [lots of stuff] > I haven't thought this all the way through, and don't have time to do so for > another week or three, but my experience is that when we try to soften > transitions like this (where "we" means the software community in general), > we generate just as much frustratio

Re: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.0 (fwd)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: A well-stated proposal, Ian... but it gives me heartburn nonetheless. : In the far future we can remove the compatibility links from : base-files. This has to be considered carefully, because after those : links are gone installing an old package will ma

Re: bash should not be essential

Hi, >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Santiago> I want to change the policy. I think bash should not be Santiago> essential. Why? Mind you, I'm not being argumentative, I just want to see technical reasons for and against having a standard, free Bourne she

bash should not be essential

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Ian Jackson wrote: > If you want to change the policy and say that bash shouldn't be > essential then please come to debian-policy and we'll talk about it. I want to change the policy. I think bash should not be essential. > It might be worth considering how ma

Re: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.0 (fwd)

I missed the original bit of this thread, so I have to ask... Does the FHS address both local and mounted directories? To explain... There are, as I see it, 3 general file-storage locations other than the standard / and /usr systems. - files local to this machine (not network mounted) - arch-

Backspace and delete

Some time ago I posted the message below to debian-devel. It received widespread support and no significant opposition. I think it should be made policy. If it is made policy we can go and report bugs against all the programs that fail to implement it, and then hopefully for 2.0 we'll have backs

Re: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.0 (fwd)

Fabrizio: > Anyway [a] proposal was harshly rejected with the assertion that "dpkg > have problems with symlinks to directories", argument that I can't > debate. Maybe now that Klee and Ian have time again for Debian, we > could hear a more informed opinion. I am here, honest. Technical details:

Re: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 2.0

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- David Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This means, that /usr/share can be shared among architectures > (Debian GNU/Linux), where /usr/bin/... is shared among machines with > the same architecture (i.e. Debian GNU/Linux on i386 NFS mount > /usr/i386/bin, Debian