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

Re: [vhost-base] Draft policy proposal



On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 01:52:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 02:40:43PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > > "A unified system for virtual hosting system [sic] was needed ...".
> > > It's not sufficient to just declare the need and use that as
> > > the rationale. Please explain the need as well.
> > Previously there was no system for supporting virtual hosts whatsoever,
> > so the packages just restricted them to a single host and let the admin
> > do all the work and scatter their vhost stuff anywhere, leaving them out
> > on their own. This helps standardise virtual host support.
> 
> That's mixing up two uses of "unified". You initially use it to justify
> unifying the virtual host stuff into a single directory; but in your
> justification you only use it to mean "standardised".

I'd like both unified and standardised tbh.

> You could equally standardise on:
> 
> 	/var/lib/vhosts/
> 		foo.bar.com/
> 			cgi-bin/
> 			index.html
> 	/var/log/apache/
> 		access.log
> 		foo.bar.com/
> 			access.log
> 			errors.log
> 
> Which would have the benefit of keeping all logs in /var/log (which is
> nice and consistent for backup purposes), and wouldn't directly contradict
> the FHS.

I'd like to keep them under /var/vhosts for the time being, but I'd also
be more than willing to by default provide a copy under
/var/log/apache2, if that's what people want. That's the current setup I
have - one client copy (/var/vhosts/docklands), one for us
(/var/log/apache). This works well in production.

> You might like to email the FHS and see if there's any suggested standards
> for locating system-specific user data yet; at one point a /org-equivalent
> was being considered (/srv, iirc), which would be useful for this.

Well, what you have to bear in mind is that this isn't just for apache2;
it also covers FTP, LDAP, mail, you name it; anything that wants to make
of vhost-base, can. That's why I made it generic. (I hope I haven't
wasted my time here, because everyone I've spoken to about this has
limited it just to apache :\ ).

> Considering the variety of ways of doing this, you probably want to
> make your "setup-vhost" script be fairly flexible, so that it could
> support, say, any of:
> 
> 	/home/httpd/www.*.com/index.html
> 	/home/httpd/logs/www.*.com/access.log

I don't want any of my packages ever touching /home.

> 	/org/www.*.com/apache/index.html
> 	/org/www.*.com/logs/apache-access.log
> 
> 	/srv/www/*.com/index.html
> 	/srv/www/logs/*.com-access.log

I'm not even going to think about supporting www.*.com vs. *.com, as
that's an unnecessary and evil hack. The current setup makes no
assumption that the vhostname has any correllation to the (email
domain|web host|etc). In production, I have /var/vhosts/docklands,
serving www.docklands.com.au, www.docklands.com,
www.victoriasnewwaterfront.com, *@docklands.com.au, etc, etc. There are
just too many types of host to consider doing that.

> 	/var/vhosts/www.*.com/web/index.html
> 	/var/vhosts/www.*.com/log/access.log
> 
> 	/var/www/www.*.com/index.html
> 	/var/log/apache/www.*.com-access.log
> 
> (all of which seem to me to be things admins could reasonably prefer) and
> set one of them up as a reasonable default. Choosing one that follows
> the FHS (which among other things requires logs to go in /var/log)
> as the default is probably a good idea.

Of course ... this sounds reasonable-ish. I'd personally prefer the one
static path, but the resounding majority have called it to be
configurable a la cvs pserver, so that's what I'll run with. Eventually.
For the meantime, it's just static until I get it fully working and
solid, *then* I introduce more complexity.

:) d

-- 
Daniel Stone						    <daniel@sfarc.net>
<sir_Ahzz> WOOOOOOOO!
<sir_Ahzz> I GOT PISSED ON BY OVERFIEND!
<sir_Ahzz> my life is complete. ;)

Attachment: pgpLAdl0YDpWY.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: