On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > It's useful to have such a standard, that's why it's specified in the > GNU Coding Standard.
Well, but GNU != Debian. Debian follows Debian Policy, not the GNU Coding Standard. If you want Debian to follow the GNU Coding Standard, go to debian-vote and issue an amendment to throw away Debian Policy (or any part thereof) and replace it with the GNU Coding Standard. If you get the majority of Debian's developers to agree, then we'll follow the GNU Coding Standard; until that time, Hurd developers need to follow Debian Policy wherever possible, even if it's braindead (which I don't think it is, but just in case). > I don't think the FHS is a good standard > however. That's your good right. Still, Debian uses FHS, so Debian GNU/Hurd will also be FHS-compliant. Else it won't be Debian GNU/Hurd. What's so hard about that? I can understand that certain packages, like inet-utils for example, cannot be ported to Debian GNU/Hurd and thus need to be packaged separately. But that does not go for the filesystem. Debian GNU/Hurd will still be Debian; If GNU doesn't like that, then GNU must make it's own Hurd-distribution, and not try to change Debian. > The fact is that the loader in *BSD is in libexec and that's > part of the ABI. It isn't in GNU/Hurd, I don't know why, maybe to be > compatible with GNU/Linux or for some other reason. Simply because libexec isn't FHS-compliant. You knew that already. -- wouter dot verhelst at advalvas dot be "Human knowledge belongs to the world" -- From the movie "Antitrust" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
