On Sun, 8 May 2011 21:53:51 -0400 (EDT) R P Herrold <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 May 2011, Karl Goetz wrote: > > > I'd suggest we should explicitly require that its contents are not > > persistent, considering the proposed uses for it. > > and that was the point of the earlier thread --- This is ** > not ** something which NEEDS to be mandated, and so from which > a standards organization point of view, rather one in which to > permit 'local options' > > If a given distribution ** wants ** the support load of NOT > having enough info remaining persistent to diagnose state by > simple inspection, on their head be it --- but we do not need > to FORCE all to so suffer hm, earlier thread? I must have missed it. I'll have a dig back through my mail and see what i can find :) thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
