David Nusinow wrote: > One of the changes happening for Xorg 7.0 is that it will finally become > FHS compliant.
FWIW, the FHS 2.1 specifies /usr/X11R6 in section 4.1. I can't see anything FHS-incompliant about the current setup. > Currently, it fakes FHS compliancy by creating various > symlinks (/usr/include/X11, /usr/bin/X11, /usr/lib/X11) to the appropriate > directories in /usr/X11R6. For 7.0, we need to make those symlinks become > actual directories. I thought that the idea instead was to move everything directly into /usr/include, /usr/bin, and /usr/lib. Why keep the X11 subdirectories? Note that the FHS has this to say about /usr/bin/X11 and friends: In general, software must not be installed or managed via the above symbolic links. They are intended for utilization by users only. > Because the remainder of the Xorg 7.0 packages will require this change > to have taken place, they will have to pre-depend upon an appropriate > version of x11-common. As such, I'm writing to the list in accordance with > policy. What about all the packages that you don't control that also still put things in /usr/X11R6? Recall that policy allows this for anything still using Imake, as well as mandating it for any package containing X fonts. If the idea is to make /usr/*/X11 real directories and stop using /usr/X11R6 then all those package would also need to be updated and have a predependency added too. Seems easier just to move everything in X to /usr/bin, /usr/include, and /usr/lib. Also, moving stuff to /usr/bin/X11 and making it a real directory will break things for anyone having /usr/X11R6/bin in their path instead. One example of such a path is in pbuilder. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
