Ainsi parlait Vincent Danen :
> On Fri Oct 03, 2003 at 01:01:07AM +0200, Oden Eriksson wrote:
>
> Oden.. nice to see, but you didn't install it in a good way.
>
> You have include/ exposed, which would have been fine for 0.2.3 or earlier,
> but the layout should really be something like:
>
> /var/www/anthill
>
> rather than /var/www/html/anthill. Then you just expose
> /var/www/anthill/html (ie. via an Alias or a symlink), but you keep
> include/, etc/, etc. unexposed and entirely unreachable for maximum
> security.
There have been some discussion previously about this, see
http://qa.mandrakesoft.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/PackagingTask#Web_applications
for kind of synthesis.
The point was to use /var/www/html/%{name} for every application, and to use
FHS compliant location for non-web files. If you have a configuration
directory for anthill, it seems for me more logical to use /etc/anthill for
it than /var/www/anthill/etc, for instance. The same could be said for
include, that should rather go into /usr/share/anthill.
> I can fix this a little later on if you like (or you can). I'm not on the
> cooker list anymore so you'll have to cc me.
I'd prefer to restart this discussion on web applications policy first...
--
Guillaume Rousse
If they're just accessories, how come we want them so badly?
-- Murphy's Law of Accessories
