[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Summary of the 2009-01-06 Packaging Committee meeting

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 02:01:47PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 01:16:59PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>> * Make adherence to the FHS a MUST, [...]
>>> Is there a recognized process for getting changes into upstream FHS?
>> Changes to the FHS are discussed on their mailing list hosted on
>> Sourceforge::
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/freestandards/
> The discussion there seems mainly to revolve around the topics of
> enlarging members and picking penny stocks:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=freestandards-fhs-discuss
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=freestandards-ldps
> I saw precisely 1 non-spam posting in the last 2 months (and that was
> just a question).
> This really matters.  If we're going to block projects because they
> cannot fulfil FHS requirements (eg. as might have happened to MinGW
> because of the /usr/<target> path) then there must be a way to get
> changes into the FHS.
This particular case (cross-compilers) was addressed in the meeting::

(09:59:54 AM) abadger1999: "with exceptions for libexecdir (specified in
the GNU Coding Standards [LINK]) and /usr/target for crosscompilers"
(09:59:58 AM) abadger1999:
(10:00:01 AM) hansg: spot, +1
(10:00:16 AM) ubertibbs: I'm sure there are other problems, but we
should simply address them when they come up.

We also are acknowledging here that we may not be able to get our
changes applied to the FHS (athimm tried to get libexecdir into FHS, for
instance, but was stymied by their current lack of interest in problems)
and we'll list more exceptions in the Guideline if necessary.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]