I wrote:
> > For example, from what I've picked up so far, usr/doc is changing
> > to usr/share/doc. That doesn't sound a particularly worthwhile
> > change to me at present, so I would like to read a rationale for the
> > changes.
On Wed, Nov 05, 1997 at 04:05:17PM +0000, Mark Baker wrote:
> It's moved to /usr/share because it _can_ be. We want as much as possible in
> there.
I've read the thing now and it makes sense. I'm not sure that "share"
is the best name since all of /usr is designed to be shared, but a bit
late for that now.
But I was shocked to see the Linux annex specify that
/usr/include/{asm,linux} should be a symlink -> /usr/src/linux/...
Are we in danger of being labelled FHS-compatible (instead
of FHS-compliant) because we do what libc6 and Linus both recommend?
hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt, StudIEAust [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Student, computer science & computer systems engineering. 3rd year, RMIT.
http://hamish.home.ml.org/ (PGP key here) CPOM: [***** ] 58%
The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. --Bohr
