Hi, On Friday 09 December 2005 16:07, Holger Levsen wrote: > 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." > > In > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSY >STEM /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 media.) I'm still patiently waiting for a reply... regards, Holger
Attachment:
pgpVlVCW0GIPJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature