Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > > > Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > The issues is that by Debian policy, all Debian ports must follow the > > > FHS. The same is true of the FreeBSD and NetBSD ports (I only noticed > > > this because of the patch to support FreeBSD). > > > > > > Certainly after */libexec is added into the FHS, we can add it back > > > in. We would have to recompile a whole lot of Debian anyway, so doing > > > glibc on top of that shouldn't be a problem. > > > > We need not change anything now in Hurd systems. We do not need to > > worry about matching aspects of policy that we expect to change by the > > time we actually release. And, we expect that FHS will have, by that > > time, a Hurd-specific annex that covers this particular point. > > Why keep it Hurd-specific? If would be equally useful on Linux too (I > would very much like to see libexec on GNU/Linux if and when the FHS > adopts it).
Among other things, politics. It's better to accomplish what we know we can accomplish, rather than tilting at windmills. Someday, perhaps, but for now, just a small step.
