Re: Future: fhs 2.3 compliance for fc3

[Hugo van der Kooij <hvdkooij vanderkooij org>]

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, seth vidal wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 19:14 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 19:04, seth vidal wrote:
> > > I don't think talking about whether or not we like them is useful here.
> > > It is the fhs and fedora core should be compliant with it.
> >
> > There are plenty of standards out there that are just silly, so
> > compliance for the sake of compliance is probably not the best
> > approach.
>
> How about fhs compliance is something that other distros will have  and
> therefore fedora core should have it too.

We should aim for LSB N compliance. If the LSB N does specify FHS X.Y
compliance then that is what it takes to be LSB N compliant.

I do hope the LSB team specifies FHS versions as it seems FHS is going to
make life harder instead of easier with each new version.

Hugo.

-- 
 All email sent to me is bound to the rules described on my homepage.
    hvdkooij vanderkooij org		http://hvdkooij.xs4all.nl/
	    Don't meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
	    for they are subtle and quick to anger.