[lsb-discuss] Don't blame LSB and standards, please: was: Re: Fedora Plasma Product, feedback please
eagle at eyrie.org
Mon Mar 31 23:14:12 UTC 2014
Theodore Ts'o <tytso at mit.edu> writes:
> Yah. The FHS hadn't gotten enough love back when I was actively
> involved, and it probably needs updating even more desperately at this
> point. The main problem, as Russ has stated, is one of resources.
> Someone has to volunteer to do the work to make the changes and gather
> support for the changes, especially if it means working with the
> distributions to encourage them to make some changes for the common
> good. It takes a lot of time, and we have done that in the past. Some
> distributions have been more receptive to this lobbying than others, and
> at the end of the day, we do not have the power to force distibutions to
> do anything.
I lurk on this list because I am interested in seeing Debian follow
standards where they make sense, and feeding Debian's experiences back to
the process, but the amount of time I have to work even on Debian Policy
is very limited at the moment, let alone doing the communication and
coordination. I suspect that's a common condition and there are several
of us who are similarly lurking and hoping to help where we can but very
limited in how much time we have available for it.
For those who are curious, the current Debian FHS exceptions are
Many of them may already be addressed in the new FHS that's part of LSB 5.
I have to admit I've not checked.
The new exception we're very likely to add is to relax the distinction
between /usr/share and /usr/lib and allow directories containing mixed
architecture-independent and architecture-dependent files to be under
/usr/lib, since modifying upstream packages to split
architecture-dependent and architecture-independent files has not provided
sufficient benefit to be worth the effort in practice.
Russ Allbery (eagle at eyrie.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the lsb-discuss