On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 06:39:34PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote: > > > > Having /hurd has nothing to do with FHS. You can have FHS, as well as > > > > having > > > > /hurd. > > 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?
There's a more general chicken-and-egg problem too: the FHS isn't supposed to be changed until there's some existing practice to change too; but otoh it forbids people from introducing new top-level hierarchies to establish existing practice... Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
