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

Re: FHS and /var/www

On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 18:32 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said:
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 02:55:25AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > > > So you think it's a good idea to ignore the the sentence above?
> > 
> > > > No, I don't think that using it as a default webroot is "rely[ing] on a
> > > > specific subdirectory structure of /srv existing or data necessarily being
> > > > stored in /srv", because the web server can be reconfigured to look
> > > > elsewhere.
> > 
> > > If the apache or other httpd debs ship the directory and then set it as
> > > the default webroot, surely that is 'relying' on the directory existing?
> > > Unless you don't think that packages need to ship with sane working
> > > defaults, which strikes me as not the sort of argument you normally make.
> > 
> > Actually, I think the sane default for a package that serves content to the
> > network is to not serve any at all, so it's more relying on the directory
> > *not* existing.  But as you've shown, this is not a safe assumption either.
> In a certain sense I agree that network services should do nothing by
> default, but that is largely not been the 'Debian way' up to now -

It seems that the IT world is divided in two groups of people :
* Those who expects to have network services enabled with some
  "reasonable defaults" when they install a package.
* Those who expects to have network services disabled by default
  when they install a package.

Can Debian satisfy them both ? Well... why not !

The policy could state that network service's init.d script must check
for a file named "/etc/no-paranoia"[1].
If the doesn't exists, the init.d script should refrain from starting
the network service, unless the file /etc/default/ contains
"PARANOIA=allow-start", to be added manually by paranoid admins.

[1] one is invited to find a better name ;)

> > Would the suggested /srv/www/localhost/htdocs as a default work for you?
> > Apparently this is widely deployed on other distros, and seems to be
> > entirely compatible with what you're doing.  I think the chances are pretty
> > slim that this directory exists *and* contains content that isn't meant to
> > be served.  Or, if "localhost" might imply content that's only meant to be
> > served to the local host, then maybe /srv/www/default-site/htdocs?
> Something like /srv/www/default-site/htdocs is certainly more appealing[..]

Even though I don't like the idea of using /srv by default, I must admit
that the name "*/default-site/*" is the best name I've ever seen. It's
more explicit than /var/www, and it make it clear that this is the
default (v)host.


Reply to: