On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 12:09:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> For new packages, grouping everything in /usr/share/www sounds like a good
> idea. The alias name, « vendor », I find a bit disturbing because we do not
> sell anything. But picking the name will be the priviledge of the Do-o-crat who
> will lead the transition, I presume.
Well, it is actually pretty common in cross-distro lingo, Debian is a
vendor as well as pretty much every other distro is. The advantage of
settling on such a name IMO would be a higher chance in making it
popular in other distros. Also, it is a name that I _think_ is pretty
unlike to be used by local admins.
> Still, having /usr/share/www as a document root does not prevent complex
> packages to be fragmented between /usr/share, /usr/lib/cgi-bin/, /var/lib/,
> /var/tmp, /var/run and /etc. Maybe you can double-check how many web servers
> are able to cope with that before starting to invest a lot of time. Otherwise,
> since shipping configuration files in /etc/webserver/conf.d will still be
> necessary for these packages to work, there will little benefit in moving files
> to /usr/share/www.
I don't understand this argument. Sure, complex packages will be split
in several dirs, our policy states the rule for that to happen. The
whole point of this standardization is to have a single URL prefix under
which _entry_points_ for shipped web applications can be found, no
matter how the applications are deployed on the filesystem. I found such
a goal worthwhile by itself and orthogonal to the other concern you
raise.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature