On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 01:52:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 02:40:43PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > > "A unified system for virtual hosting system [sic] was needed ...". > > > It's not sufficient to just declare the need and use that as > > > the rationale. Please explain the need as well. > > Previously there was no system for supporting virtual hosts whatsoever, > > so the packages just restricted them to a single host and let the admin > > do all the work and scatter their vhost stuff anywhere, leaving them out > > on their own. This helps standardise virtual host support. > > That's mixing up two uses of "unified". You initially use it to justify > unifying the virtual host stuff into a single directory; but in your > justification you only use it to mean "standardised". I'd like both unified and standardised tbh. > You could equally standardise on: > > /var/lib/vhosts/ > foo.bar.com/ > cgi-bin/ > index.html > /var/log/apache/ > access.log > foo.bar.com/ > access.log > errors.log > > Which would have the benefit of keeping all logs in /var/log (which is > nice and consistent for backup purposes), and wouldn't directly contradict > the FHS. I'd like to keep them under /var/vhosts for the time being, but I'd also be more than willing to by default provide a copy under /var/log/apache2, if that's what people want. That's the current setup I have - one client copy (/var/vhosts/docklands), one for us (/var/log/apache). This works well in production. > You might like to email the FHS and see if there's any suggested standards > for locating system-specific user data yet; at one point a /org-equivalent > was being considered (/srv, iirc), which would be useful for this. Well, what you have to bear in mind is that this isn't just for apache2; it also covers FTP, LDAP, mail, you name it; anything that wants to make of vhost-base, can. That's why I made it generic. (I hope I haven't wasted my time here, because everyone I've spoken to about this has limited it just to apache :\ ). > Considering the variety of ways of doing this, you probably want to > make your "setup-vhost" script be fairly flexible, so that it could > support, say, any of: > > /home/httpd/www.*.com/index.html > /home/httpd/logs/www.*.com/access.log I don't want any of my packages ever touching /home. > /org/www.*.com/apache/index.html > /org/www.*.com/logs/apache-access.log > > /srv/www/*.com/index.html > /srv/www/logs/*.com-access.log I'm not even going to think about supporting www.*.com vs. *.com, as that's an unnecessary and evil hack. The current setup makes no assumption that the vhostname has any correllation to the (email domain|web host|etc). In production, I have /var/vhosts/docklands, serving www.docklands.com.au, www.docklands.com, www.victoriasnewwaterfront.com, *@docklands.com.au, etc, etc. There are just too many types of host to consider doing that. > /var/vhosts/www.*.com/web/index.html > /var/vhosts/www.*.com/log/access.log > > /var/www/www.*.com/index.html > /var/log/apache/www.*.com-access.log > > (all of which seem to me to be things admins could reasonably prefer) and > set one of them up as a reasonable default. Choosing one that follows > the FHS (which among other things requires logs to go in /var/log) > as the default is probably a good idea. Of course ... this sounds reasonable-ish. I'd personally prefer the one static path, but the resounding majority have called it to be configurable a la cvs pserver, so that's what I'll run with. Eventually. For the meantime, it's just static until I get it fully working and solid, *then* I introduce more complexity. :) d -- Daniel Stone <daniel@sfarc.net> <sir_Ahzz> WOOOOOOOO! <sir_Ahzz> I GOT PISSED ON BY OVERFIEND! <sir_Ahzz> my life is complete. ;)
Attachment:
pgpKUiRG9IWhb.pgp
Description: PGP signature