On Sun, 19 May 2002, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > Adam Heath wrote:
> > > Having /hurd has nothing to do with FHS. You can have FHS, as well as
> > > having
> > > /hurd.
> >
> > Software should never create or require special files or
> > subdirectories in the root directory. Other locations in the FHS
> > hierarchy provide more than enough flexibility for any package.
>
> But what if the kernel makes use of it? Should the kernel be considered
> software, for this definition?
Was the Hurd considered when the standard was drawn up?
Phil.
--
Philip Charles; 39a Paterson Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin, New Zealand
+64 3 488 2818 Fax +64 3 488 2875 Mobile 025 267 9420
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - preferred. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I sell GNU/Linux & GNU/Hurd CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
