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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
