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

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:21:12AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 03:23:22PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > I still see a problem with the upgrade path for existing installations.
> > I might be wrong but I think the most difficult cases are very custom
> > setups with lots of changes by the local admin. I'm thinking of e.g.
> > webmail.domain.tld being a virtual host with DocRoot
> > /usr/share/squirrelmail. If the files there move to
> > /usr/share/www/squirrelmail we break a lot of setups. So, what about
> > shipping a symlink from the old location to the new one as a migration
> > path? This doesn't solve the very default (e.g. users accessing
> > squirrelmail via localhost/squirrelmail) but that is so easily solved
> > via alias directive or symlink that I suppose a NEWS.Debian entry would
> > fit best here.
> > What do you say?
> I think that migrations from complex setup to this new setup will stay
> complex no matter what we do. Also, it is not really something we can
> "standardize" upon as migrations are very specific to each involved
> packages and will ultimately be dealed with by single maintainers. So
> I'd refrain to propose a generic upgrade path and just describe the new
> situation we want to obtain.

I agree, I was just pointing out that common setups can have a proper
migration path. We could give a hint when we're at it but the maintainer
needs to think of something him/herself after all.

> > Now, I'm willing to run this, i.e. file bugs against web servers, wait
> > for them to be fixed, then file bugs against web applications (if
> > needed, I'm right now looking into a way to make a lintian check for it,
> > e.g. package-with-section-web-but-no-files-in-canonical-docroot). But I
> > don't feel like we're having a clear consensus here, do we?
> Well, defining consensus is always a tricky business :), but I haven't
> heard significant voices against, am I wrong? I'd personally proceed as
> follow: write a draft document (even a very brief one!) which summarizes
> the proposal so that people do not need to dig into the thread to follow
> the evolution. Once we have it, re-post it to the relevant lists (I'd
> say -devel, -policy, -webapps) and ask for comments.

I'll try to come up with something within the next 24 hours. Don't know
yet if it's gonna be a DEP or just another mail but summarizing what we
got so far sounds like a plan.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: