On Wednesday 04 February 2004 1:37 am, Jon Portnoy wrote: > What does /srv give us that /var doesn't?
Shrugs. Personally, I find it more convenient to mount /srv on a nice raid array - or another large disk - and leave /var on the root filesystem or a device that's local to the machine. And - as Robin's explained better than I can - this approach really makes life easier on networked clustered machines. I don't think that this is an example of the FHS doing against the way that UNIX works - just going against the current habits on many Linux users. We didn't call it /srv back then, but when I first started out as a system administrator in the early nineties, when UNIX machines were normally workstations clusted via NFS and NIS with a central server, I was taught to do something very similiar. It reminds me of how the hostname convention has changed over the last ten years. Originally, hostname was just the hostname. Then the hostname changed to be the fully qualified domain name. And now it's gone back to being just the hostname ;-) From what's been said so far, I think we should introduce the /srv hierarchy. If we do, we should also agree on a mechanism for introducing new directories under here, just so that there are no unfortunate clashes. And there would need to be a migration/communication strategy to let our users understand what we've done and what it would mean for them. Does it need to go through the next manager's meeting? I can't attend these meetings so if this is the process, I need someone to help with that. Or should this be handled another way? Best regards, Stu -- Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ Beta packages for download http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/packages/ Come and meet me in March 2004 http://www.phparch.com/cruise/ GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
