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

Re: /var/www is depracated, which directory to use?


On Mittwoch, 30. September 2009, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'm still unconvinced by /srv personally - we've strived for years in
> Debian to make things work as much as possible straight from initial
> installation, yet now we're expected to deliberately leave services
> unconfigured. I don't think this is progress for most of our users...

+1 from yet. Yet I still don't know how to configure munin, so that it works 
out of the box (and so that the webpages it generates are served by a 
webserver) and conforms to FHS like some people read it.

/var/lib/munin/www is wrong (FHS says: "Users must never need to modify files 
in /var/lib to configure a package's operation." since users might want to 
modify the css files)

/var/cache/munin/www feels very wrong, but might work, with static files like 
css files coming from /etc/munin/www or such.

what other options do you see?

On Montag, 28. September 2009, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#FTN.AEN1192 explicitly
> > says: "This is particularly important as these areas will often contain
> > both files initially installed by the distributor, and those added by the
> > administrator." which to me very much sounds like the distributor
> > (=Debian here) can place directories there...
> The problem is that people already put a lot of things under /srv and
> therefore it is really hard to make sure you do not overwrite anything.
> What do you do e.g. if the name of the directory you want to create
> already exists as a file?

Simple: leave it as it is and don't provide a working configuration out of the 
box. I doubt that many people will have /srv/munin and if they have, they can 
very probably configure munin themselves.

On Montag, 28. September 2009, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | > commenting on /srv in particular:
> | >
> | > As I read it, putting stuff there is absolutely not fine.
> |
> | Where do you read this?
> |
> | http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#FTN.AEN1192
> That's a footnote, and in most standards, footnotes are not
> normative.

Hm, point taken, I guess.

So, atm I only see one way out of this: ask other distributions how they 
handle this and (then) talk with the FHS people to clarify usage of /srv and 
what to do with webapps.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: