| 1 |
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:55:39 +0100 |
| 2 |
Fabio Rossi <rossi.f@××××××.it> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wednesday 31 December 2008, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Any reason for that? Aesthetics aren't a very compelling argument |
| 7 |
> > IMO, and the FHS also seems to favor the current layout (in my |
| 8 |
> > interpretation at least, as we're not really talking about |
| 9 |
> > "inter-related applications" in technical terms). |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I agree with you, there is no technical relation, i.e. those |
| 12 |
> applications are stand-alone, but I also think that the "link" is |
| 13 |
> their role, they are all used for administrative purposes *inside* a |
| 14 |
> Gentoo distribution ("inside" might be the right keyword to justify a |
| 15 |
> little deviation from the FHS). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The same could be said about /var/lib/init.d, /var/lib/dhcp, |
| 18 |
/var/lib/iptables or several other packages that aren't hosted by |
| 19 |
Gentoo. In the other direction, if the packages are eventually used on |
| 20 |
other distributions/systems, should they then use another path? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Mind that this only addresses the FHS part of my mail, you haven't |
| 23 |
really answered my question: What's the benefit of changing things? |
| 24 |
Change for the sake of change is rarely a good idea (unless you work in |
| 25 |
PR/marketing ;) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> In the opposite direction, in according to your opinion, I don't see |
| 28 |
> a reason to have /var/lib/gentoo/news instead of something |
| 29 |
> like /var/lib/gentoo-news. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Right. But retroactively changing GLEP 42 and all affected packages is |
| 32 |
a bit much just to avoid a generic "gentoo" directory. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Marius |
Archives