> > Ben, I don't really see the point of all of us spending time to support > non-Debian systems. I don't have much interest in seeing dpkg take over > the universe. The point of having standards such as the FHS is to avoid > this kind of kludgery. >
Please reread my original post. Two of the three cases involve actual Debian ports (either present or future). > And yes, I maintain packages where there would be a lot more effort to > follow this proposal than just sourcing the file and changing a few > configure commands. So do I, but no where did I say this was going to be a "do or die" proposal. Moving to this should be encouraged. Making it a requirement that could get packages removed for RC bugs is obviously not acceptable. Requiring developers to accept technically competent and reasonable patches to enable this is something I think should be required (e.g. if someone files a bug that correctly solves this issue, you either accept the patch, or leave the bug open at normal severity). Ben -- -----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------ / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
