On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 10:33:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > But if we accept this (which seems likely, given no objections
> > received so far), let's try to get the icon/pixmap/whatever issue
> > solved at the same time, because packages won't be permitted to use
> > /usr/X11R6/include/X
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 03:21:36PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I like this! (Read: seconded) At long last, we may be able to do
> away with the regular /usr/X11R6/bin vs. /usr/bin debate!
Seconded as well. At one time we will be able to drop /usr/X11R6.
(I am certain that this will happen at
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> + Packages using the X Window System should abide by the FHS
> + standard whenever possible; they should install binaries,
> + libraries, manual pages, and other files in FHS-mandated
> + locations wherever possible; this means
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 03:21:36PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I like this! (Read: seconded) At long last, we may be able to do
> away with the regular /usr/X11R6/bin vs. /usr/bin debate!
That's the hope (one of several, anyway).
> But if we accept this (which seems likely, given no objection
I like this! (Read: seconded) At long last, we may be able to do
away with the regular /usr/X11R6/bin vs. /usr/bin debate!
But if we accept this (which seems likely, given no objections
received so far), let's try to get the icon/pixmap/whatever issue
solved at the same time, because packages wo
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
Severity: wishlist
This attempts to fit the X Window System as well as we can without
discarding the /usr/X11R6 hierarchy.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Human beings rarely imagine a god that
Debian GNU/Linux |behaves any better
6 matches
Mail list logo
