Bug#314808: /usr/share/PACKAGE/www
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:34:27AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > So FHS suggests:
> > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM
> > There is no consensus. It's a mess.
> I don't know what lack of consensus you're referring to.
That /srv/www could be also /srv/physics/www. I find that distasteful.
> > > There's no way that Debian is going to create /web/example.com for you, and
> > Why not? Because of FHS?
> Because there's no infrastructure implementing this yet, and you are also
> not going to get everyone to agree that this is the one, true directory
> layout for services. If it's your intention to provide the infrastructure
> to create these directories, then ok -- but you ought to come up with a
> proof of concept first before asking that its use be mandated by policy.
Ok, it's harebrained to ask for another top level. Though Web services
is probably Debian's or Free Software's best line of attack.
Regarding proof of concept. I have been running my services like this
for years. Leveraging Apache Virtual Hosting off /web
(VirtualDocumentRoot /web/%0). Many other people do the same.
So how about a /srv/www/HTTP_HOST type structure?
> > > webapp packages certainly aren't going to populate that directory with their
> > > files on install, so what does it actually buy anyone to put this in policy?
> > Why not? Web apps should be be configured to do so. Just like they would
> > have to be for PACKAGE/www type structure.
>
> No, /usr/share/package/www is a single, fixed path per package containing
> the files shipped in the package. You're talking about something completely
Damn what files exactly?
Install files go in /var something or other don't they?
Reply to: