On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 07:16:12AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/21/2012 06:36 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>So?
Next the FHS, it is one of the fundamental "standards", which define
the basis of all packaging works on Linux/GNU and thus also the FPG.
No, it defines the GNU project's standards for their own projects.
Fedora's not a GNU project, and nor are most of the packages we ship.
>The GCS describe the behaviour of code written to the GCS,
nothing
>more. The majority of the software we ship doesn't conform to them.
I disagree again. Most packages silently conform its path
conventions, only few don't and only few explicitly exploit it.
The path convention is a small part of the GCS.
>They're not a GNU project, and so there's no reason for
them to follow
>the GCS.
Sure, but there is hardly any reason for a package to not adopt it.
Sure there is - most distributions don't have libexec, and so software
that depends on it will have inconsistent paths on different
distributions.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org