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

should packages begin using /srv ?


policy currently mandates FHS 2.1, while FHS 2.3 is the current upstream 
version. /srv is not mentioned in FHS 2.1 - but /srv is created by base-files 
or debootstrap even in sarge (cannot find it in the code at a quick glance.. 
the base-files/FAQ says its debotstrap, but whatever..

In #340608 Steve Langasek writes "FHS 2.3 for etch is still an open question, 
as there are some transition issues.  But as far as I'm concerned, /srv is 
fine for packages to begin using." 
/srv is described as "/srv contains site-specific data which is served by this 
system. Rationale: This main purpose of specifying this is so that users may 
find the location of the data files for particular service, and so that 
services which require a single tree for readonly data, writable data and 
scripts (such as cgi scripts) can be reasonably placed. [...]"

So my question is simply: should packages begin using /srv now ? What is the 
release teams opinion and decission on this ? (Steve commented on IRC that it 
would be good to have this decission made by the team and in an archived 


Attachment: pgpFGieuzmBAY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: