Re: New versions of the FHS

2001-04-11 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 12:03:54PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > What do people think of this idea? The only change it will require in > > policy is specifying "FHS version 2.1" in place of "FHS" when we > > discuss it. (Exact diff will be supplied if needed.) > > > > We should definate

RE: New versions of the FHS

2001-04-11 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
> What do people think of this idea? The only change it will require in > policy is specifying "FHS version 2.1" in place of "FHS" when we > discuss it. (Exact diff will be supplied if needed.) > We should definately document the version of any policy we follow -- LSB, FHS, etc. Do you have an

New versions of the FHS

2001-04-11 Thread Julian Gilbey
There is a new version of the FHS in the pipeline, as is being discussed on the FHS mailing list. I am wary, though, given our experiences of previous transitions, of automatically adopting it without due care and consideration. I would like to suggest, therefore, that policy should specify the v