Re: Advice for package needing stuff installed in /srv (node-shiny-server)
Thank you all for your advice. I have been helping out to get this
packaged. I agree with Nilesh but am chiming in, but I apologize if I
am just repeated what is already clear.
/srv/shiny-server is upstream's default location for files to serve.
It starts out with the sample files but the user replaces those with
their own. The sample files start there and provide the user proof
that the server is working and an explanation on how to replace the
files.
The server directory is easily changed by modifying the config file to
whatever is desired. So it is not essential to host here, just the
default. Everything would still work if it were another directory
specified in config.
The issue is that the documentation, samples and all of the upstream
online documentation, e.g.
https://support.rstudio.com/hc/en-us/articles/219002337-Shiny-Server-Quick-Start-Host-a-directory-of-applications
(or on third party sites like Stack Overflow), refer to
/srv/shiny-server as the default location for hosting. I doubt
upstream would want to change all of that without a strong reason.
>From a user's perspective it would be much clearer if Debian could do
the same, in my opinion, so all of this existing and distributed
documentation and support still applies to new users of the Debian
version. Is there a technical solution to enable this, e.g. post
installation, that satisfies Debian's requirements?
Many thanks,
Eric
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 1:57 PM Nilesh Patra <nilesh@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 07:42:29PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Following FHS 3.0 is required by Debian Policy, and it says that "no
> > program should rely on a specific subdirectory structure of /srv
> > existing or data necessarily being stored in /srv".
> > So if I understand the situation correctly, leaving the package to
> > depend on filesystem path /srv/shiny-server is a violation of Debian
> > Policy and needs to be fixed,
>
> This was the whole point of my email, and it is the reason I started
> this email thread in the first place.
>
> I would have gone with installing it in /srv w/o seeking advice if it were
> not a violation.
>
> > either by avoiding that code (installing
> > it only as example files) or patching, or convincing upstream to change
> > default path.
>
> Yes, this was discussed in just the previous conversation (w/ me and wookey)
> I am looking for more opinions.
>
> Essentially if someone has a techincal way/solution to bypass this; or if someone on the list
> has had experience of working on a package that had similar reqs as shiny-server, it'd be nice to
> know what they did for their package.
>
> Best, Nilesh
--
Eric Brown MD MSc FRCPC
For encryption, OpenPGP public key available on request.
Reply to: