On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 08:11:41PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 12:43:52PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > I'm not sure if there is any benefit to something standard like > > /usr/share/<httpd>/defaultdocumentroot. Maybe there is, if some > > program external to the web server wants to set up a later vhost for > > that web server. In any case, it would not be a formal DocumentRoot, but > > would instead be more of a document skeleton directory that is copied or > > linked into place. > > [I am only a by-stander in this discussion, but I have just a small > technical point]. > > I would like to suggest an other naming convention that fit better with > Debian practice: > > /usr/share/httpd/defaultdocumentroot/<package> > > i.e. putting the files in a common directory instead of clobbering the > /usr/share/<package> namespace. > This is in line with how menu, reportbug and lintian provide similar > facilities (/usr/lib/menu/<package>, /usr/share/bug/<package>, > /usr/share/lintian/overrides/<overrides>). It is not, because there are packages named "menu", "bug", and "lintian" to which these heirarchies correspond. There is only a virtual package named "httpd"; if someone opted to create a real (though ill-advised) package named httpd, there would be a namespace conflict. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpFv7SsM1USt.pgp
Description: PGP signature