On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 10:30:28PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 07:11:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Now if you want to point out that FHS doesn't mention /hurd and so > > using it is in violation of FHS, then you are quite right. > > No, then he's wrong. I don't know about your copy of the FHS, but mine > (version 2.2 dated May 23, 2001) doesn't forbid a distribution to add > directory.
Looking at version 2.2 at http://www.pathname.com/fhs/, section 3.1, it explicitly says that "software must never create or require special files or subdirectories in the root directory", over and above those specified in the standard. As a result, my reading suggests that distributions including such software aren't compliant with the current version of the FHS. Which part are you looking at? > It's just interesting to see that nobody has even noticed this, but of > course I'm the clueless flamebait here, it's just that I have read the > FHS carefully more than once while writing that GNU/Hurd specific > annex and checking where Debian GNU/Hurd differs from the FHS at the > moment. It's not that I don't know where I am talking about. > > I suggest people should read it carefully before trying to discuss > these things and then they will even find out that it's amateurish and > confusing like hell. Don't try to even try to reply without reading it > carefully as I'm not going to waste time anymore teaching somebody to > read. Notwithstanding this, and I have read it somewhat carefully, I'd be interested to hear chapter and verse. It's clear that you have a particular piece of text in mind. (I have no interest in bashing the Hurd for not conforming to a document that clearly hasn't taken account of it yet, by the way - that would be pointless and, as tb has pointed out, off-topic.) > Keeping in mind that the FHS is a document written for proprietary > third-party LSB packages and it specifies what those packages can find > where and where they should install things helped me a lot with > understanding it. The FHS isn't the LSB, and it certainly claims (1.1) to be intended for more than just creators of third-party packages. Debian doesn't use it in the sense you say, as far as I know. > Anyway, it's just useless trying to convince people on debian-devel > that they are wrong because they don't want to listen anyhow. I'm quite prepared to admit I'm wrong, but I'd like to hear references. Are you? -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
