[pkg-GNUstep-maintainers] Conflicts between FHS and GnuStep (was: Bug#256141: addresses: GNUstep Mass Bug Breaks Policy Section 9.1.1)

[Andreas Barth]

[pretty full quote for the wided auditorium]

* Eric Heintzmann (eric.h@no-log.org) [040807 10:55]:
> On 2004-07-30 11:58:18 +0200 Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> >There does appear to be a policy violation here.  The files installed
> >under
> >/usr/lib/GNUstep/System/Library/Frameworks/Addresses.framework/Versions/A/Headers/
> >are (Obj)C header files, which according to the FHS should be 
> >installed
> >under /usr/include/. 

> The FHS says:
> 4.3 /usr/include : Directory for standard include files.
> This is where all of the system's general-use include files for the C 
> and C++ programming languages should be placed.
> 
> Since these headers are part of a gnustep framework (see these 
> frameworks like plugins), they are not standard or of general-use and 
> they don't need to be moved in /usr/include. ( But I agree that 
> installing headers  /usr/lib... is not FHS-compliant).

>> [...]
> The problem is that the GNUstep Makefiles system install them at this 
> place, and expect to find them here and not in /usr/include. (you will 
> find same problem in all other GNUstep packages).

> But the problem is more general, GNUstep uses is own filesystem 
> layout, wich is not FHS compliant.
> (see it here: 
> http://www.gnustep.org/resources/documentation/filesystem.ps)
> Changing this layout implies to break this elegant layout, and to fork 
> GNUstep make.

Ok, we're now pretty near to a release, and this RC-bug is open for
some time, so my question is: How to continue?

I can see different ways out (order has nothing to do with
preference):

1. Agree that
   | This is where all of the system's general-use include files for the C 
   | and C++ programming languages should be placed.
   doesn't match GNUstep files, and leave everything as is.
2. Accept the location of GNUstep files as an exception for sarge, and
   change that post-sarge.
3. make a lot of changes to GNUStep in the last minute
4. drop GNUStep from sarge

I don't have any real opinion on it, except that dropping would be a
pity, and I don't like over-hurrying. So, I'd go for 1 or 2.

Of course, you might disagree, and IMHO the RMs have the last say.
However, I think there should be some discussion by next weekend, so
that we know where we are going to.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C