[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#775318: marked as done (debian-policy: Using /srv instead of /var/lib for served user-level data)

Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700
with message-id <87o9rlx51o.fsf@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #775318,
regarding debian-policy: Using /srv instead of /var/lib for served user-level data
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
775318: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=775318
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist

Dear Maintainer,
I wanted to separate user-level data (for special RAID, backups, encryption and such) from system data on my machine, so I targeted /home and /srv. I found out that data managed by system services are being stored in /var/lib/<packagename> when I expected them to be in /srv and this doesn't really make sense to me. I also wanted to limit the size of the /var partition to around 4GB, but I can't 
practically do this when, for example, ownCloud is managing user's data in
/var/lib/owncloud. Users would then see a file storage limit of whatever space 
there was left in /var. Dokuwiki, mediawiki, and I believe gitweb are other
examples.

I don't think this is just a personal preference on my part, since the FHS
doesn't seem to describe this kind of use for /var while /srv makes more sense 
/var/lib --
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#VARLIBVARIABLESTATEINFORMATION
/srv --
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM

I wanted to suggest a change to the policy that user-level data managed by
system-services should be stored in /srv (instead of /var/ or something in
/usr/share/).

I'd be grateful for your consideration of this proposal.
Thanks and regards,
Afif

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.8
  APT prefers stable-updates
APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'proposed-updates'), (500, 'stable') 
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=ar_SA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=ar_SA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
control: user debian-policy@packages.debian.org
control: usertag -1 +obsolete
control: tag -1 +wontfix

Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and
we are closing this bug as inactive.

The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most
frequent to least frequent:

- issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix
  the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one
  has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be
  important enough to keep an open bug around;

- issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a
  consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion.  A fresh
  discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the
  old bug are unlikely to help very much; or

- issue is not appropriate for Policy.

If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the
discussion, you can re-open the bug.  However, please consider instead
opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the
previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian,
and makes clear exactly what you think should change.

A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages,
and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what
Debian Policy should say today.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: