hi stefano, On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:09:20AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > I understand this problem, but I think you're shooting at the wrong > target. The advanced proposal (beside the aesthetically displeasing > name) is about standardizing a default vendor document root on disk so > that packages can install content in it, as well as defining a base URL > that maps to it. > > Inherently, such a proposal applies to static content, not CGI > applications. I fail to see where lay problems about unconfigured static > content. read-only static content unpacked from packages is certainly not an issue wrt being "unconfigured", but i was given the impression by other folks in this thread that the scope was not this narrow. but at the same time, if we're only talking about static content at this filesystem location, i wonder about the overall utility/benefit of standardizing on a location in the first place. how many webapp packages in debian consist of only read-only static content, which would be helped by such a standardization? wrt the issue about namespacing and default URL's (i guess this is a seperate issue from fs location, really) i'm unconvinced about the benefits outweighing the costs. has anyone considered putting up the arguments for it in a DEP? sean
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature