Re: FHS and /var/www
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 08:58, Tollef Fog Heen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> ]] Ben Finney
> | We could deal with this as we did for '/usr/share/doc' vs '/usr/doc';
> | that is, make '/srv/www/foo' the canonical location but allow a long
> | transition period where '/var/www/foo' is permitted as a symlink to
> | '/srv/www/foo'.
> You can't know the structure of /srv, see the FHS rationale:
> The methodology used to name subdirectories of /srv is unspecified
> as there is currently no consensus on how this should be done. One
> method for structuring data under /srv is by protocol, eg. ftp,
> rsync, www, and cvs. On large systems it can be useful to structure
> /srv by administrative context, such as /srv/physics/www,
> /srv/compsci/cvs, etc. This setup will differ from host to
> host. Therefore, no program should rely on a specific subdirectory
> structure of /srv existing or data necessarily being stored in
> /srv. However /srv should always exist on FHS compliant systems and
> should be used as the default location for such data.
> As long as the structure is unspecified, it is just about impossible
> to me to have a sane default pointing to anywhere in /srv (except
> directly at /srv itself) as that directory might very well not exist.
> I would argue shipping a /srv/www is a bug if the site does not use
> that layout.
> Tollef Fog Heen
> UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
I just noticed in section 10.5 that /var/www should be used, so I have
filed an bug against the policy that 10.5 contradicts 9.1.
/Carl Fürstenberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>