Re: FHS compliance (was Re: Intent To Split: netbase)

2000-08-18 Thread Chris Waters
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 02:32:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Actually, according to the FHS in literally translates to "partially > compliant". Ah, ok. I must have been thinking of another standard. (I'm tempted to say, a Real standard, but I'll be nice). In that case, I think your suggest

Re: FHS compliance (was Re: Intent To Split: netbase)

2000-08-18 Thread Joey Hess
Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:08:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > This could be fixed by simply saying "Debian packages should by fully > > compliant with the FHS, except where otherwise indicated in this > > document", or similar. > > I could live with that. Let people

Re: FHS compliance (was Re: Intent To Split: netbase)

2000-08-17 Thread Anthony Towns
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 09:59:18AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > > This could be fixed by simply saying "Debian packages should by fully > > compliant with the FHS, except where otherwise indicated in this > > document", or similar. > And note that "compliant except for X" really translates to > "co

Re: FHS compliance (was Re: Intent To Split: netbase)

2000-08-17 Thread Chris Waters
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:08:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:30:00PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > > Very true. On the other hand, the mere *presence* of /usr/doc is an > > FHS violation. Therefore, if policy requires compliance *at this > > point*, it would be self

Re: FHS compliance (was Re: Intent To Split: netbase)

2000-08-16 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:08:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > This could be fixed by simply saying "Debian packages should by fully > compliant with the FHS, except where otherwise indicated in this > document", or similar. I could live with that. Let people who want to violate the FHS campaig

Re: FHS compliance (was Re: Intent To Split: netbase)

2000-08-16 Thread Anthony Towns
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:30:00PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 06:47:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > This proposal seems fairly dubious to me: there's been a fair degree of > > thought put into the FHS and where files should be located (/usr/share > > vs /usr), eg, and

FHS compliance (was Re: Intent To Split: netbase)

2000-08-16 Thread Chris Waters
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 06:47:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:40:12AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > [Followups to debian-policy, please] > > Let this message serve as policy proposal that we change the wording of > > section 3.1.1 from "must comply" to "must be co