Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously Steve Robbins wrote:
> > The current policy document does not make explicit that packages ought
> > to aim to be "compatible" with FHS, rather than "compliant".
> We don't aim to be fully compliant though.
Right, that's what the proposal is about. Steve feels (and I think I
agree) that policy is not sufficiently *clear* about this point at
present. This is not an attempt to make us adopt compliance as a
goal, it's an attempt to clarify what we *are* doing.
Steve did this at my urging -- I'll review it this weekend when I have
a little time, but everyone else can, of course, comment or criticize
or even second in the meantime.
cheers
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
