FHS vs LSB
Steve Langasek
vorlon at dodds.net
Wed Jan 15 21:32:46 CST 2003
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 10:20:29PM -0500, Tom Wickline wrote:
> In updating the Packagers Guide I plan to replace FHS with LSB
> any objections ?
> FHS = http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
> LSB = http://www.linuxbase.org/
Given that complying with the FHS requires a handful of args passed to
./configure, and complying with the LSB requires a completely separate
system to build your binaries on, that doesn't sound like a good idea to
me. Indeed, if you're going to s/FHS/LSB/, there's no longer much point
in having a Packager's Guide at all: at that point, all of the packages
would be either binary-compatible or buggy, so the Guide would no longer
serve the purpose of helping platform-specific packagers create good
packages.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
More information about the wine-devel
mailing list