On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > > 1) Non-FHS ports have problems concering the directories where things > > > get installed (they may not match linux directories). Darwin, FreeBSD, > > > Hurd and many others fall into this category. > > > > Could someone explain to me how a non-FHS 'Debian Port' is something we > > should even be thinking about doing? Is it really Debian anymore? It > > certianly isn't just a port.. > I think Debian is not defined by the FHS, but the other way round: > We make good use of the FHS, because it solves a problem we have to > solve anyway, and it is a reasonable standard. We try to achieve
Well, when I was saying 'non-FHS' I was trying to convey a broader sense of non conformance with Debian policy (which does currently include most of the FHS) The fact that indivudual packages may have specific reasons to not follow policy and the FHS is largely a confined issue. A *port* however should not be going around changing things willy nilly. A Debian GNU/HURD system should be very close to a Debian GNU/Linux which would be even closer to a Debian GNU/BSD (due to their more similar kernel design). I know the HURD people want to do interesting and innovative things. IMHO that is a project for FSF GNU/HURD - and isn't really suitable for Debian's UNIX-Like distribution, which HURD is a kernel port of currently. > We have two more root-level directories: /hurd (for translators, > which are special programs which can be invoked manually, are > installed manually, but usually invoked by the system). I don't see that this would be a problem solved by Ben's proposal since this is HURD specific used only by HURD packages. > And we use /libexec (which is IMHO a good idea), which is > something that could be changed if really, really necessary. > Frankly I'd drop this. <shrug> It is against Debian policy and for instance if someone were to file a bug that APT doesn't use libexec I'd promptly close it. Jason
