On 04/17/2012 04:38 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> The new document root is supposed to be the default vhosts document
> root (there is no need to distinguish between default vhost and no
> vhost). Other vhosts can be put in other sub directories in /var/www/,
> like /var/www/www.example.com or /va
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 16.04.2012 18:59, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> Defining a standard for vhosts would solve the problem without having
>> to touch the normal doc root. Seems like a far simpler fix.
>
> how would you do that? We can't control or enforce what dire
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Arno Töll wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 16.04.2012 18:56, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
>>> /srv is solely the domain of the sysadmin, packages cannot rely on any
>>> particular layout not specified by the sysadmin (via debcon
On 17.04.2012 09:41, Marcin Kulisz wrote:
> I had problems with running anything with suexec outside /var/ and
> recompilation was needed to make it possible.
As Simon says, you can install apache2-suexec-custom. That brings you a
configurable suexec, but that's completely our own stuff unsupp
On 17/04/12 03:46, Paul Wise wrote:
> What if the sysadmin chose to use
> /srv/http/east-coast/foo.bar.org.vhost/ for the foo.bar.org vhost? Can
> they still use suexec?
Not the normal version, no, because suexec hard-codes the top directory
/var/www as a security measure (you can never use it to
On 2012-04-17 10:46:17, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>
> > Suexec's compiled-in document root would stay at /var/www so that it
> > would include all vhost document roots. And dspam-webfrontend could
> > keep its files in /var/www/dspam, inside suexec's
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> Suexec's compiled-in document root would stay at /var/www so that it
> would include all vhost document roots. And dspam-webfrontend could
> keep its files in /var/www/dspam, inside suexec's document root,
> without polluting the default doc
On Monday 16 April 2012, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> > /srv is solely the domain of the sysadmin, packages cannot rely
> > on any particular layout not specified by the sysadmin (via
> > debconf etc).
>
> I know. Is that a problem though?
> AFAIK
On Monday 16 April 2012, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Arno Töll wrote:
> >> I'd use ht instead of html. Not every ht file is a html file.
> >
> > I have no strong opinion on the actual name, as long as it is
> > another subdirectory. We could equally use /var/www/de
Hi,
On 16.04.2012 18:56, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
>> /srv is solely the domain of the sysadmin, packages cannot rely on any
>> particular layout not specified by the sysadmin (via debconf etc).
>
> I know. Is that a problem though?
> AFAIK pack
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Arno Töll wrote:
>> I'd use ht instead of html. Not every ht file is a html file.
>
> I have no strong opinion on the actual name, as long as it is another
> subdirectory. We could equally use /var/www/default, /var/www/htdocs or
> whatever we feel like.
What abou
Hi,
On 16.04.2012 18:59, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> Defining a standard for vhosts would solve the problem without having
> to touch the normal doc root. Seems like a far simpler fix.
how would you do that? We can't control or enforce what directory people
pick for their virtual hosts. We do not
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> /srv is solely the domain of the sysadmin, packages cannot rely on any
> particular layout not specified by the sysadmin (via debconf etc).
I know. Is that a problem though?
AFAIK packages don't (and shouldn't) put any files into vhost dirs.
-
Hi,
On 15.04.2012 12:29, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> I'd use ht instead of html. Not every ht file is a html file.
I have no strong opinion on the actual name, as long as it is another
subdirectory. We could equally use /var/www/default, /var/www/htdocs or
whatever we feel like.
I only proposed /
]] Olaf van der Spek
> FHS says /srv contains site-specific data which is served by this system.
> Besides, it's the admin that's going to populate the space, so if it's
> not enough, he can change the location.
You're going to end up with some packages creating directories in /srv
with the wron
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> I'd use ht instead of html. Not every ht file is a html file.
>>
>> We should consider vhosts as well. Lighttpd defaults to
>> /srv//htdocs (for mod simple vhost). ht instead of htdocs might
>> be better.
>>
>> We could use /srv/default/ht
On 04/15/2012 06:29 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Arno Töll wrote:
>
>> Thus, to summarize once again: I'd like to change the default directory
>> served by web servers from /var/www to /var/www/html along with
>> remaining web servers in Debian.
>>
>> Comments
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> We should consider vhosts as well. Lighttpd defaults to
> /srv//htdocs (for mod simple vhost). ht instead of htdocs might
> be better.
>
> We could use /srv/default/ht as the default doc root.
> FHS: /srv : Data for services provided by t
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Arno Töll wrote:
> Thus, to summarize once again: I'd like to change the default directory
> served by web servers from /var/www to /var/www/html along with
> remaining web servers in Debian.
>
> Comments?
I'd use ht instead of html. Not every ht file is a html fi
19 matches
Mail list logo
