Re: Are packages allowed to ship files in /srv?
On Saturday 22 July 2006 21:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
--cut--
> The other side (disclosure: this is my personal opinion) is that the
> second-to-last sentence of the second paragraph argues strongly against
> shipping files in /srv as part of the package. By doing so, the package
> is imposing structure on /srv; if the local administrator wants a
> different structure, it's difficult for them to maintain that change.
> Each time the package is upgraded, the files would be reinstalled in the
> package-forced location. I think that it would be fine to point
> configuration files to /srv by default and tell people to put things
> there, or to install a default structure via postinst after the first
> installation, but not to put files in /srv directly in the package.
I don't see /var/www mentioned in FHS, and we have bunch of web-based
applications (think of whatever www-based admin package, like phppgadmin for
instance) and these packages at some point need to install their files in
some document root directory and it will probably be under /srv in the
future. So, I do not think we should leave such apps in the cold. Or perhaps
FHS does not take into account such web-based apps and should be revised ?
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Reply to: