Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silva...@gmail.com) said:
Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to
move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base
filesystem package.
Then the guidelines should be fixed to create less confusion over the
On 09/02/2009 11:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silva...@gmail.com) said:
Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to
move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base
filesystem package.
Then the guidelines should
On 09/02/2009 08:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silva...@gmail.com) said:
Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to
move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base
filesystem package.
Then the guidelines should
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
Section 1.3 Optional functoinality is a special case of Section 1.5
Common directory without one requiring the other. I'd combine them like
this:
I've updated the proposal based on this and other feedback.
And one more idea to throw out there: How
Bill Nottingham wrote:
1) filesystem started out as just the FHS dirs
Well, we could have filesystem with the FHS dirs and a new system-filesystem
with the distro-specific ones.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On 09/02/2009 03:27 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
1) filesystem started out as just the FHS dirs
Well, we could have filesystem with the FHS dirs and a new system-filesystem
with the distro-specific ones.
Kevin Kofler
That doesn't fix concerns 2 and 3 (snipped
On 09/02/2009 09:03 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 11:47 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silva...@gmail.com) said:
Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to
move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to
