Andrew Mathews offered this little gem:
%
% Question is, what standards should be adhered to? I woult think FHS (
% http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ ) would be common sense, as would be LSB (
% http://www.linuxbase.org/ ) just for starters. This needs a consensus
% before any package inclusion discussions.
Ummm, unless things have changed, the FHS URL refers to the same
standard as the LSB. I can't get to the Pathname site to confirm
this, though. It certainly *used* to be the same, though. Regardless,
the FHS (2.0 *or* 2.1) represents a good starting point, for most
of the reasons pointed out in the various Rationale sections scattered
throughout the spec. I don't agree with all of them, but neither
does anyone else.
Kurt
_______________________________________________
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc
->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
