On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 04:39:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 4)==
> Added optional dirs /etc/sgml and /etc/xml. The number of mandatory
> files in /etc has dropped. (We comply). It does, however, seem to say
> we need /etc/X11/XF86Config instead of our XF86Config-4, and want
> /etc/X11
Hi folks,
Joey Hess noted a series of place where we need to add caveats
to the FHS 2.3, some of which can be gradually removed from the
policy. While we have had a number of seconds to this proposal, we
have not actually had a complete policy proposal (the devil lies in
the details, a
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 01:04:35PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Debian policy is still stuck requiring FHS 2.1, although a copy of FHS
> 2.3 is included in the debian-policy package. As noted in bugs 212434
> and 230217, the changes needed to upgrade to 2.3 are not too large, and
> consist of:
> Seco
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The reason this has not changed is because back in october, we
> had a large, unresolved discussion both on the policy and the devel
> mailing lists that went over the changes, point by point, and people
> pointed out that there were obstacles to just recommend
Hi,
The reason this has not changed is because back in october, we
had a large, unresolved discussion both on the policy and the devel
mailing lists that went over the changes, point by point, and people
pointed out that there were obstacles to just recommending the move
to 2.3
* Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050627 19:04]:
> 2.3:
> I second moving to 2.3. We've already made significant progress
> in that direction and the work remaining to be done seems easily
> accomplished in the etch timeframe.
seconded.
Cheers,
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
Debian policy is still stuck requiring FHS 2.1, although a copy of FHS
2.3 is included in the debian-policy package. As noted in bugs 212434
and 230217, the changes needed to upgrade to 2.3 are not too large, and
consist of:
2.1 to 2.2:
- new location for adjtime file (#156489)
- #212434 and the
7 matches
Mail list logo
