* Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000302 10:43]:
> Steve Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > May I suggest that the policy document clearly state that the aim is
> > `compatibility'? For instance, by replacing the quoted sentence with
> > something like:
>
> > Debian packages must be compatible with version X.Y of the FHS.
> > (See the FHS document for a definition of `compatible'.)
>
> My first comment, though: I doubt that we want to specify the version
> of the FHS. I realize that there's a little ambiguity if we don't,
> but A) I don't think we want to revise policy every time the FHS is
> updated, and B) we do include a copy of the FHS with the debian-policy
> package, so the ambiguity really isn't *that* bad.
How about this, then:
Debian packages must be compatible with the FHS as
packaged with this version of the debian policy. (See
the FHS document for a definition of `compatible'.)
:)
--
Seth Arnold | http://www.willamette.edu/~sarnold/
Hate spam? See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ for help
