Re: Changing the default document root for HTTP server
On 04/15/2012 07:21 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> That's what you get with silly partitioning. :p
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a joke, but if it is, it's not
really funny (because it's been re-occurring so many times).
Each time there's a change proposed that will affect people with a
*decent* partitioning, there's always someone that will tell it's a
*silly* way to partitions. When saying that, you're missing the point.
The point is to avoid breaking working setups, the fact that it is a
silly way to do partitioning (in your eyes) is totally irrelevant to the
fact you're going to break an admin's (perfectly valid IMO) choice.
Have a wider 30000 foot view. Many people are doing what you call
"silly", and don't want their rootfs to be filled to death with user
data, so they use separate partitions. Typically, /usr, /tmp, /var,
/home, and also probably /var/log and /var/lib. If it's not YOUR choice,
it might be the one of someone else. Breaking things just because it's
not *your* preference, and you feel it looks better this way, isn't a
smart move. Please try to refrain yourself from pushing Debian to break
our user's systems.
More over, that's *not* the proposed change, which is to move from
/var/www to /var/www/html. Could we please stick this thread to this
*only* and not loose our time with "silly" proposals, which the
maintainers of apache didn't talk about?
> FHS says /srv contains site-specific data which is served by this system.
> Besides, it's the admin that's going to populate the space, so if it's
> not enough, he can change the location.
1/ If it's site-specific, it means we shouldn't touch it, just like it
doesn't make sense to put things in /usr/local
2/ If your proposal is to move things in /srv because anyway, it's going
to be changed by the admin, then it's "silly" ...