Re: draft proposal for a new web server policy
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:05:14PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 08:11:41PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > [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.
While I agree with the conflict, there are ample precedents for this:
/usr/share/doc
/usr/share/locale
/usr/share/man
/usr/share/misc
/usr/share/common-licenses
/usr/share/i18n
/usr/share/pixmaps
/usr/share/miscfiles
Just try
for i in /usr/share/*; do test -d /usr/share/doc/`basename $i` || print $i; done
Between risking namespace conflicts with file in packages that exist and
namespace conflicts with packages that do not exist yet, I would choose
the former.
Also I used `httpd' but of course, if the policy create the need for, say, a
httpd-common that provide basic infrastruture to enable it, that can be
used instead.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: