Archives
Archives
| From: | William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: FHS or not (WAS: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-03-11) | ||
| Date: | Sun, 02 Mar 2014 17:51:38 | ||
| Message-Id: | 20140302175159.GA3790@laptop.home | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: FHS or not (WAS: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-03-11) by Peter Stuge |
||
| 1 | On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 05:49:59PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 2 | > Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: |
| 3 | > > Sure at some point you have to make things evolve but this upstream |
| 4 | > > solution simply isn't nice for its users. |
| 5 | > |
| 6 | > That may be, but I don't think it's a distribution's responsibility |
| 7 | > to try to own that problem. |
| 8 | |
| 9 | This is my point exactly. Patrick's proposal is that we make this policy |
| 10 | that all config files belong in /etc a distro policy, including |
| 11 | patching upstream software to force it to conform. If we make this a |
| 12 | distro policy and upstream rejects it, there will always be a lot of |
| 13 | work downstream that is imo unnecessary. |
| 14 | |
| 15 | William |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: FHS or not (WAS: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-03-11) | Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> |