On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 11:47:25AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On 2 Sep 2002, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > Matthew> It's a very baaaaad thing, in my opinion. If (for whatever
> > Matthew> reason) you'd had a directory called dwww when you'd
> > Matthew> installed dwww, you'd have lost it all (I think - I don't
> > Matthew> think I've ever hit the situation personally). Not a
> > Matthew> preferred outcome, in my eyes.
> >
> > Well, I have always held (right or wrong) pretty much the opposite
> > view to yours: /var/www _is_ for Debian content, and local content
> > belongs in /usr/local. (thats why you don't see all that much in my
> > /var/www :-] )
>
> That's a reasonable interpretation. Not what I'd go with, though. Do you
> have your DocumentRoot reconfigured? How do you handle having both Debian
> content and local content available side-by-side?
Things get even more difficult if you use thttpd, which doesn't support
symlinks or aliases: All content _has_ to be under /var/www (or some
other, single, directory). An option might be to have all Debian
packages install in some specific subdirectory, such as /var/www/debian
(or whatever). The problems this brings are probably not worth it,
though :(.
OTOH, it might be a good idea to set up web servers that _do_ support
aliasing to have some separation of debian content and local content
out-of-the-box (with possibility for reconfiguration, naturally, with
proper explanation of the dangers of putting local files in /var/www
Just my EUR 0.02.
--
Matijs van Zuijlen
... designed to fill holes or cracks of not more than two cubic vims.
-- Robert Sheckley, Untouched by Human Hands
Attachment:
pgpJjrGGMzz8F.pgp
Description: PGP signature