[Debian GNUstep maintainers] GNUstep and FHS in Debian (why is it i always want to make fun of such subjects)

[Matthias Klose]

Jonathan Shipley writes:
> Gürkan Sengün <gurkan at linuks.mine.nu> writes:
> 
> > Is there any solution in sight that'll make anyone happy?
> > (I'm asking since I will want to u se the latest gnustep packages,
> > and update some gnustep software that got new releases, and
> > more will be coming soon) and i'm all for enabling fat binaries.
> 
> Good question.  Where are we with this?  
> 
> I quite like Gurkan's suggestion, except not quite as high in the system
> root, perhaps /GNUstep.  Tidy.  Visible. I doubt this is acceptable
> though.

No, it's not.

> If the consensus is that GNUstep is not, and cannot be made FHS
> compatible then the policy should be adapted.

Then please explain, why it's not possible to modify gnustep-make,
that it places things in a FHS compatible way. The argument that
applications and bundle have to be in a common directory doesn't
hold. Packages are managed by dpkg on Debian, you don't "unpack" a
tarball somewhere.

> I don't think anyone wants to see GNUstep packages removed from
> debian.

You remember the times, when KDE was not allowed in Debian, when it
didn't follow the FHS? Don't take it that easy. With an attitude like
it sounds like it will be removed.

    Matthias