Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So using /var/state is actually discouraged?
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Since it is not mentioned in the current FHS 2.1 draft > (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/fhs-2.1-pre-02.tar.gz), and the description > of /var/lib seems to encompass the possible uses of /var/state, I must > assume so. Perhaps Dan Quinlan will offer an opinion. That's accurate. /var/state was introduced in FHS 2.0, which (as far as I am aware) nobody ever adopted. The current *draft* of FHS 2.1 restores /var/lib, using the /var/state definition which is somewhat cleaner than the old /var/lib one. Did Debian adopt FHS 2.0 at any point? If it hasn't, then /var/state shouldn't be showing up anywhere. If Debian policy is now "FHS instead of FSSTND", then please nag me to release FHS 2.1 officially. Also, the Debian policy should specify the FHS version number. As an interim Debian policy, I would recommend against lodging bugs for /var/lib and /var/state until FHS 2.1 is finalized, even though I don't expect any changes in this area. - Dan
