On 1 Mar 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> There's a difference between compliance and compatibility. At the
> moment, we are striving for compatibility. Compliance will be a later
> goal.
Ah. I can see now that the first sentence of section 3.1.1 is probably
trying to say `compatibility' using other words:
3.1.1 Linux File system Structure
The location of all installed files and directories must comply
with the Linux File system Hierarchy Standard (FHS).
But the phrase "must comply" threw me. I assumed this meant Debian is
aiming for `compliance'.
May I suggest that the policy document clearly state that the aim is
`compatibility'? For instance, by replacing the quoted sentence with
something like:
Debian packages must be compatible with version X.Y of the FHS.
(See the FHS document for a definition of `compatible'.)
> FHS-compatible systems are likely to be far more common than
> FHS-compliant systems for the near future. Debian is far from unique
> in choosing mere compatibility at this stage. I don't know of any
> distributions that claim full compliance today.
A question now occurs to me: is Debian `policy' now fully compatible with
the FHS?
If not, then the introduction in 3.1.1 should say something more like
Debian strives to be compatible with the FHS. Packages must
be compatible with FHS version X.Y with the following exceptions:
(a) ....
Comments?
--Steve
