On 07/03/2018 11:56 AM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> How about the attached patch?
>
> Complete patch series (including non-normative) updated here:
> https://salsa.debian.org/smcv/policy/merge_requests/1/diffs
> Seconded.
Cheers,
Julien
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 03 2018, Simon McVittie wrote:
> How about the attached patch?
Seconded:
>>From 5205d0a50465cf422f1040d9395d5ea83dbfde5f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Simon McVittie
> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:43:04 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Update to FHS v3.0
>
> Notable changes that
How about the attached patch?
Complete patch series (including non-normative) updated here:
https://salsa.debian.org/smcv/policy/merge_requests/1/diffs
On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 at 14:04:28 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28 2018, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > On 64-bit architectures, only the
Hello,
On Thu, Jun 28 2018, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> 2. The requirement for amd64 libraries to be installed to /lib64 have
>>been removed, so we can drop/reword our exception for that (point 3 in
>>9.1.1 in current Policy)
>
> OK, so more like this?
>
> On 64-bit architectures, only t
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 at 21:05:07 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> 1. FHS 3.0 allows distributions to create directory hierarchies under
> user's home directories conforming to the XDG Base Directories or
> the GLib conventions on user directory contents.
>
> We don't permit packages to ins
[trimming CC]
Hello Simon,
On Thu, Jun 14 2018, Simon McVittie wrote:
> I've prepared patches for this, which are available here:
> https://salsa.debian.org/smcv/policy/merge_requests/1/diffs
>
> I've attached them here, except for the patch that replaces the bundled
> copy of FHS v2.3 with a bu
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 14:37:04 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> There are already 28 /usr/lib/TUPLE/*/bin directories in unstable.
> There are probably other directories with binaries not named bin.
>
> They are candidates for being moved to /usr/libexec, but they should
> probably go to /usr/libex
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 11:28:11PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 22:37:04 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I assume if we allow /usr/libexec, we also need to support
> > /usr/libexec/x86_64-linux-gnu/ etc. ?
>
> I'm not sure I see why we would? Platforms with the "multilib"
On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 at 20:43:10 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 07:09:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > I have not looked at this at all, but this list should be aware that it
> > exists.
>
> > The LSB workgroup is happy to announce the release of FHS 3.0.
> ...
> > Re
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 at 22:37:04 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I assume if we allow /usr/libexec, we also need to support
> /usr/libexec/x86_64-linux-gnu/ etc. ?
I'm not sure I see why we would? Platforms with the "multilib" lib/lib64
duality (Red Hat derivatives, etc.) only have one /usr/libexec,
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 08:26:00AM +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 20:43:10 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > Le Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 07:09:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > > I have not looked at this at all, but this list s
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 20:43:10 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: normal
>
> Le Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 07:09:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > I have not looked at this at all, but this list should be aware that it
> > exists.
>
> > Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:19:04 -
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
Le Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 07:09:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> I have not looked at this at all, but this list should be aware that it
> exists.
> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:19:04 -0400
> Subject: [fhs-discuss] FHS 3.0
>
> The LSB workgroup is happy to
13 matches
Mail list logo
