[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: chroot bind?

On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 04:52:23PM +1200, Nicholas Lee wrote:
> Note though that in the mailing list there has been a little dis-content
> about /svr vs /var, etc etc.  So it might not finalise for 2.2.
> Anyway, given the wording of FHS 2.2 S3.17 I figure /svr/domain would be
> a FHS-complinate location for a chroot domain server.

this would be somewhat annoying since / is small and contained on many
systems, adding /svr means either an extra partition, or symlinking it
somewhere else.  i can see why there is dis-content (or was there some
other complaint?).

/var/svr would make more sense IMO.  / has enough already.  

Ethan Benson

Attachment: pgpUDB0xCjrHd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: