Bug#379176: "E: foo: non-standard-toplevel-dir srv/" is policy not an error
Holger Levsen <debian@layer-acht.org> writes:
> On Saturday 22 July 2006 02:49, you wrote:
>> By my reading of FHS 2.3, no Debian-supplied package should be
>> installing files into /srv, since /srv is reserved for the local
>> administrator for local data. The error message may not be accurate,
>> but it looks to me like this still should be an error. Am I missing
>> something?
> I don't think you are correct:
> In
> http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/fhs/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM
> the last sentence about /srv says:
> --begin quote -----------------
> Distributions must take care not to remove locally placed files in these
> directories without administrator permission. [20]
> [20]
> This is particularly important as these areas will often contain both files
> initially installed by the distributor, and those added by the administrator.
> --end quote -----------------
> So, as I read it, /srv is clearly designed for files from the
> distribution and locally added ones.
How can that be reconciled with:
The methodology used to name subdirectories of /srv is unspecified as
there is currently no consensus on how this should be done. One method
for structuring data under /srv is by protocol, eg. ftp, rsync, www,
and cvs. On large systems it can be useful to structure /srv by
administrative context, such as /srv/physics/www, /srv/compsci/cvs,
etc. This setup will differ from host to host. Therefore, no program
should rely on a specific subdirectory structure of /srv existing or
data necessarily being stored in /srv. However /srv should always
exist on FHS compliant systems and should be used as the default
location for such data.
I don't see any way that shipping files under /srv in a Debian package
would be consistent with the second-to-last sentence above.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: