Ok, here, as promised, is the final draft.
I've let this idle for a bit while I was doing other things, so here's
a quick recap for those who missed or forgot the original discussion.
Policy says you must follow the FHS, period, and then goes on to say
you must do things (the /usr/doc symlink,
Seconded
Chris Waters schrieb:
--- debian-policy.sgml~ Mon May 21 10:45:51 2001
+++ debian-policy.sgmlThu Jun 7 11:59:58 2001
@@ -3983,8 +3983,9 @@
p
The location of all installed files and directories must
- comply with the Linux File system
On 09-Jun-01, 11:53 (CDT), Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- debian-policy.sgml~ Mon May 21 10:45:51 2001
+++ debian-policy.sgmlThu Jun 7 11:59:58 2001
@@ -3983,8 +3983,9 @@
p
The location of all installed files and directories must
-
severity 98291 normal
retitle 98291 [AMENDMENT 09/06/2001] Clarifying FHS policy
thanks
With seconds from Arthur Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] and Steve Greenland
[EMAIL PROTECTED], this is now a formal amendment.
Since this proposal has already been discussed quite a bit, no
packages are affected,
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
severity 98291 normal
Bug#98291: being truthful about the FHS and us
Severity set to `normal'.
retitle 98291 [AMENDMENT 09/06/2001] Clarifying FHS policy
Bug#98291: being truthful about the FHS and us
Changed Bug title.
thanks
Stopping processing
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 01:46:10PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
Seconded.
Thanks
It would be nice if there were a footnote to the first sentence listing
the D-P sections that conflicted...
Yes, I suppose it might be. But I'm too lazy to write one right now,
and I'd rather not stretch this
Picking this back up where I left it after a brief hiatus...
With the BTS currently down, I can't really do a lot to move this
proposal forward, but I thought I'd at least post the final version
that aj and I hammered out. This meets our goals of being simple,
direct, and addressing the actual
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:12:30PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:17:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
(The exceptions we allow are cases where (a) the FHS doesn't really say
anything useful, like where CVS repositories should go, and (b) /usr/doc,
which we're aiming
Hi
Anthony Towns schrieb:
Are there more? Yes, there's /usr/lib/menu, which we don't even have
a migration strategy for,
Uh, that's possibly architecture dependent though: it'll contain different
things on different arches if, eg, you support i386 and sparc and have
acroread.deb
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 08:06:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:12:30PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
As for (b), no, we're aiming for compatibility! Grrr! :-)
No, I mean we're aiming to move all the docs to /usr/share/doc for woody
anyway; so this issue is just
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:12:30PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
and there are cross-compilers, whose time-honored standard locations
have been completely banned by the FHS.
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:22:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Right. But again: the FHS doesn't say anything useful
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:03:57AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
How about: must be compatible with and should comply with the FHS.
(Here I'm using RFC meanings of must and should; if this is a problem
at the moment, try should be compatible with and ideally should
comply with).
Is there an
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 07:09:03PM +1000, Edward C. Lang wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 06:57:19PM -0500, Thomas Smith wrote:
How about:
The location of all installed files and directories must be compatible with
the
Linux Filesystem Heirarchy Standard (FHS), and should be compliant
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:17:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:03:57AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
How about: must be compatible with and should comply with the FHS.
(Here I'm using RFC meanings of must and should; if this is a problem
at the moment, try should be
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 09:17:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
(The exceptions we allow are cases where (a) the FHS doesn't really say
anything useful, like where CVS repositories should go, and (b) /usr/doc,
which we're aiming for compliance with anyway. Are there more?)
As for (a), the FHS
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 12:12:30PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
As for (b), no, we're aiming for compatibility! Grrr! :-)
No, I mean we're aiming to move all the docs to /usr/share/doc for woody
anyway; so this issue is just about done with anyway. (Well, except that
the existance of the
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:03:57AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
How about: must be compatible with and should comply with the FHS.
[or]
should be compatible with and ideally should comply with).
Hmm, yes, my first draft actually read:
The location of all installed files and directories must
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 10:59:11AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 09:03:57AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
How about: must be compatible with and should comply with the FHS.
[or]
should be compatible with and ideally should comply with).
Hmm, yes, my first draft
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.4.0
Severity: wishlist
There is a bit of a glaring bug in policy. An earlier attempt to
address this was made in #60461, but it seems like people found that
one confusing, and there has been no progress on it. This proposal is
intended to supersede #60461,
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 11:43:08AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
--- debian-policy.sgml~ Mon May 21 10:45:51 2001
+++ debian-policy.sgmlMon May 21 10:54:35 2001
@@ -3982,8 +3982,8 @@
headingLinux File system Structure/heading
p
- The location of all
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Chris Waters wrote:
Something more like ``The location of all installed files and directories
must comply with the Linux Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, except where
indicated otherwise (or where it's just plain stupid).''
Perfect. Let's do it!
(I might suggest
21 matches
Mail list logo
