As a user I would like it if Debian had a policy on the location of the
'Additional documentation' that is supplied in the -doc packages as
per Section 6.3 of policy-manual 3.0.0.0. Many -doc packages place the
actual documentation in the base package's /usr/{share/}doc/
directory while others pl
*- On 9 Jul, Scott Ellis wrote about "Re: Debian conflicts with FHS on
/usr/include/{linux,asm} "
> On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Brian Servis wrote:
>
>> *- On 9 Jul, Philip Hands wrote about "Re: Debian conflicts with FHS on
>> /usr/include/{linux,asm} "
>
*- On 9 Jul, Philip Hands wrote about "Re: Debian conflicts with FHS on
/usr/include/{linux,asm} "
>> > Finding that you cannot rebuild a package, that built perfectly
>> > yesterday, simply because you decided to have a look at the latest
>> > kernel source, is very depressing.
>>
>> Any Joe Us
*- On 9 Jul, Philip Hands wrote about "Re: Debian conflicts with FHS on
/usr/include/{linux,asm}"
> Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Yes and no. :) There is a default install that assumes #include
>> is your current kernel version, and it does
>> not prompt you for a -I to specif
Just curious how Debian is going to stand on the FHS requirements for
/usr/include kernel headers in section 6.1.5 of the FHS? Is the
practice of including known good headers with libc6-dev going to
continue? If so then the exception should be noted in the new policy
manual.
Quoting http://www.
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.0.0
Section 3.3.4 of the policy manual still suggests the obsolete /etc/rc.boot
instead of the sysvinit standard of /etc/rcS.d as mentioned in
/usr/doc/sysvinit, man rc.boot, and lintian.
-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.1
Kernel Version: Linux brian 2
6 matches
Mail list logo
