From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13306 invoked by uid 1002); 23 Sep 2003 23:12:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 13032 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2003 23:12:12 -0000 From: Luke-Jr Organization: Gentoo Linux To: dams@idm.fr, Caleb Tennis Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:11:53 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Cc: Stanislav Brabec , aeriksson@fastmail.fm, gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <20030922063300.8839A40AD@latitude.mynet.no-ip.org> <200309231558.17080.caleb@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: GPG-Public-Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xD53E9583 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="shift_jis" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: clearsigned data Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200309232312.05766.luke-jr@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo vs. the FHS X-Archives-Salt: 817addcc-f124-487d-9b4b-aed8452e0615 X-Archives-Hash: 57e605ce0bb80881703e26d11afd0a80 =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 23 September 2003 10:12 pm, dams@idm.fr wrote: > FHS is made so that f*cking proprietary application get well installed on > every distribution, so that they can sell more, and make the big linux > actors (IBM and co), more rich. Proprietary applications should not exist in the first place, AFAIC. If thi= s=20 is the purpose of the FHS, then I'm all for non-compliance! :) > > If you agree with this way to let linux go forward (I have no opinion on > that), then be FHS compliant. It's certain that being FHS compliant is a > plus when dealing with proprietary software companies. Would we want proprietary software companies to maintain their own ebuilds = in=20 the portage tree anyway? I'd consider many open source project developers=20 better qualified for that before a proprietary developer. Therefore, seeing= =20 as all the proprietary ebuilds are likely to be maintained outside of the=20 company creating them anyway, do we need to deal with them at all (except i= n=20 crazy EULA cases like Id, of course)? =2D --=20 Luke-Jr Developer, Gentoo Linux http://www.gentoo.org/ =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/cNNBZl/BHdU+lYMRAnFyAJ9TXlhxdscZJtBNvvanzdSg5+X8hQCeN5/r xrnOZ5QH2FjdMHwZ7mOzwI0=3D =3Dl1FW =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list