Steve, you wrote: > The FHS requires that OS software use only paths conformant with the FHS > when *accessing* files, not just that the files be ultimately located in > FHS-compliant directories. So this *is* an FHS violation.
This is an interesting argument which I take all the more seriously because it comes from such a knowledgeable developer. I am surprised by the argument because in the ten years that resolvconf has existed, no one has confronted me with that particular argument before. I was involved in reviewing the FHS some years ago and I did not form the impression at that time that the FHS forbade the use of (static) symbolic links pointing to non-etc entities. If it did forbid such use of /etc then the whole Debian alternatives mechanism would be in violation of the FHS. And resolvconf itself would be fundamentally in violation since /etc/resolv.conf is a symbolic link to a non-static file outside of /etc. Ditto for serveral analogous uses of symbolic links in /etc. To see if I have overlooked something, and also acknowledging the possibility that the text may have been revised since I last read it, I have just consulted the FHS again (still at release 2.3, I see) and I still find nothing in it which I interpret as requiring what you say it requires. Which part of the FHS do you base your argument on? Looking again, I search on the word "access" and I find nothing like what you attribute to the FHS. Even if the text of the FHS did rule out the use of (static) symbolic links in /etc to non-static targets, the appropriate response would be to fix the text of the FHS. This wouldn't be the first time that the FHS had unintended implications. The FHS is not very well written. The purpose of the FHS is to describe what is common to all operating systems conforming to the standard, not to impose arbitrary pointless limitations on how particular operating systems are configured. Finally, the reason I carry on this discussion is that I care about standards and want resolvconf to be FHS-compliant. If Debian resolvconf really is FHS-noncompliant then I will fix Debian resolvconf (or the FHS, as appropriate). If Debian resolvconf is FHS compliant, however, then I would prefer it if the Ubuntu variant didn't claim otherwise. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1085862 Title: #DEBHELPER# token is in the wrong place, and other resolvconf postinst nits To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/resolvconf/+bug/1085862/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
