FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux User Repository

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-22-2012, 05:16 PM
Ruslan Nabioullin
 
Default package deletion request: fhs

I am requesting that the AUR package fhs [1] be deleted, as standards
documents are outside the scope of the AUR. I am the current maintainer
of the package.

-Ruslan

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=56396

--
Ruslan Nabioullin
rnabioullin@gmail.com
 
Old 05-22-2012, 10:28 PM
Alexander Rødseth
 
Default package deletion request: fhs

Hi,

Could it considered to be documentation for the "filesystem" package?
If that should be the case, "fhs" could be renamed "filesystem-docs"
by submitting a new package and requesting a delete+merge of the old
one.

--
Best regards,
*Alexander Rødseth
*Arch Linux Trusted User
*(xyproto on IRC, trontonic on AUR)
 
Old 05-22-2012, 10:52 PM
Dave Reisner
 
Default package deletion request: fhs

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:28:48AM +0200, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could it considered to be documentation for the "filesystem" package?
> If that should be the case, "fhs" could be renamed "filesystem-docs"
> by submitting a new package and requesting a delete+merge of the old
> one.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> *Alexander Rødseth
> *Arch Linux Trusted User
> *(xyproto on IRC, trontonic on AUR)

Much of this is covered in hier(7).
 
Old 05-23-2012, 12:48 AM
Ruslan Nabioullin
 
Default package deletion request: fhs

On 05/22/2012 06:28 PM, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could it considered to be documentation for the "filesystem" package?
> If that should be the case, "fhs" could be renamed "filesystem-docs"
> by submitting a new package and requesting a delete+merge of the old
> one.
>

Interesting, I did not think of that. However, I do not believe that
treating standard X, that system Y is applicable to, as part of Y's
documentation package is elegant; instead, Y's documentation should
merely reference X (as hier(7) does in the "CONFORMING TO" section). The
reasoning is that system Z might also be applicable to X (inelegant,
since there would exist a redundant copy of X), and more importantly, X
is self-contained. That would mean that X should exist separately as a
package, instead of being a component of Y-docs and Z-docs. I do not
believe that this packaging infrastructure (pacman, official and
unofficial repos, AUR) is well suited for offline content not pertaining
to specific software, since the functionality is specifically targetted
towards software packages.

If my reasoning is sound, then a FHS package is outside the scope of
this infrastructure.

-Ruslan

--
Ruslan Nabioullin
rnabioullin@gmail.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:40 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org