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 http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpUDB0xCjrHd.pgp
Description: PGP signature