Hi, On Saturday 22 July 2006 17:35, you wrote: > 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. I do. But I think this is getting out of scope of this bug :) Maybe the FHS should be reworded, but definitly linda should not announce this as an error. apache might ship with DocumentRoot in /srv/www - but apache must also work, if you modify this. You might have many DocumentRoots, in /srv/webserver/foo and in /srv/webserver/foo2... It says "no program should rely on a specific subdirectory structure of /srv", not "no program should rely on a specific directory in /srv" - especially if you define this directory in the programms configuration. regards, Holger
Attachment:
pgp0svKxUdMYv.pgp
Description: PGP signature