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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Followups to debian-policy, please]
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 11:22:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I think that some people are espousing non-compliance with the
> > standards. Is that what we want to do?
>
> The FHS exhaustively ex
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:29:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson 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,
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 many of the benefits of that layout aren't achieved
> with mere compa
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 compatible".
Policy proposals should be made by filing bugs against th
[Followups to debian-policy, please]
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 11:22:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think that some people are espousing non-compliance with the
> standards. Is that what we want to do?
The FHS exhaustively explains the difference between compatibility and
compliance
12 matches
Mail list logo
