All Thanks. Based on what I have heard it seems the best we could do at the moment is to advise applications to follow the FHS 2.2 but not strictly require it. In the draft certification program we are building we have drafted questions in the conformance statement for application writers to state whether they follow the FHS. Deviences should thus be allowed.
I would thus suggest we use the keyword "should" in the spec, as in "Applications should follow the FHS 2.2." >From the terminology section: Should: For an application, describes a feature or behavior that is recommended programming practice for optimum portability. This is thus not a requirement, but a recommendation and give us the leeway needed. regards Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
