Carl Fürstenberg schrieb:
FHS 2.3 specifies in
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM
to use /srv for Data for services provided by this system, for
example /srv/www for web root.
In the policy, the section
]] Gunnar Wolf
| What could be a course of action is that all webservers ship (as I
| described I am doing earlier on) their default sites in
| /usr/share/package/default-site, and instead of an It works! or
| similar page, information on what steps should the user take to turn
| it into
This one time, at band camp, Joey Hess said:
The idea that you shoot off a list saying eh, Debian would like to violate
the
FHS now and get back a oh, fine we put in a footnote, so you're still FHS
compliant does not match anything I've observed re the FHS.
That was sort of the point of the
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Moving from /var/www to /srv/www gains nothing - We would still have
all webservers throwing files where they are not supposed to, to a
user-managed directory.
There's a large difference between Debian as a whole violating the FHS
by using a nonstandard top-level directory
FHS:
| Applications must generally not add directories to the top level of /var. Such
| directories should only be added if they have some system-wide implication,
and
| in consultation with the FHS mailing list.
Stephen Gran wrote:
/var/www is not actually explicitly forbidden, just implicitly
Joey Hess dijo [Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:59:05AM -0400]:
Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Moving from /var/www to /srv/www gains nothing - We would still have
all webservers throwing files where they are not supposed to, to a
user-managed directory.
There's a large difference between Debian as a whole
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008, Joey Hess wrote:
I think that there's room for Debian to establish distro-wide policies
for the *default* directories in /srv, as a suppliment to the FHS.
I don't see the need for taking the risk of FHS non-compliance.
Why not use a new package for such policies?
e.g.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 01:26:09PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
This main purpose of specifying this is so that _users_ may
find the location of the data files for particular service, ...
Note how it only talks about users, not the operating
system/distribution.
Also note that it says find.
Hi,
On Monday 21 July 2008 05:17, Joey Hess wrote:
Hmm, my reading of this has been that programs should default to using a
directory in /srv (it says should be used as the default location for
such data), but have to allow being configured to use any other
directory in or out of /srv for
On Monday 21 July 2008 06:16:16 pm Steve Langasek wrote:
The process for deploying content under apache with the current settings is
copy it to /var/www. If we used /srv/www as a default, the process would
be mkdir -p /srv/www ... I don't think that's a hugely significant
difference.
from
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:48 AM, sean finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sean (with his dusty debian webapps team hat on)
Exactly.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
, the admin's playground to structure as they see fit,
much like /usr/local. I am fairly sure you wouldn't advocate a webroot
of /usr/local/www, so I'm having a hard time seeing why this is this better.
/usr/local/www is explicitly forbidden by the FHS. So is /var/www. In the
case of /srv/www
am fairly sure you wouldn't advocate a webroot
of /usr/local/www, so I'm having a hard time seeing why this is this better.
/usr/local/www is explicitly forbidden by the FHS. So is /var/www. In the
case of /srv/www, we're not forbidden to use it as a default, we're only
forbidden to put
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 07:46 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 13:26 +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 02:55:25AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
Yes. My webservers tend to use something like
/srv/www/sitename/{config,cgi-bin,htdocs,lib,logs,blah,blah}/ as
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 18:32 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 02:55:25AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
So you think it's a good idea to ignore the the sentence above?
No, I don't think that using it as a default webroot
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Franklin PIAT wrote:
Can Debian satisfy them both ? Well... why not !
We already do. Someone who was concerned about such things could write
a policy-rc.d which checked to see whether a particular daemon was
allowed to start based on any number of critera, including whether
Ben Finney dijo [Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:39:43AM +1000]:
Should we force all httpd:s to use /srv/www instead of /var/www, or
should an exception to the policy be added?
I think there's no hardship if we support the FHS location, so an
exception shouldn't be made.
What do you mean by
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 14:04 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Franklin PIAT wrote:
Can Debian satisfy them both ? Well... why not !
We already do. Someone who was concerned about such things could write
a policy-rc.d which checked to see whether a particular daemon was
Franklin PIAT wrote:
In a few years from now, many packages will have migrated their stuffs
from /var/lib/* to /srv/$1/localhost/.
At that time, the whole benefit of /srv being a clean location would be
voided.
Personally I am happy with what ever location Debian decides to be the
default.
On Monday 21 July 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
Would the suggested /srv/www/localhost/htdocs as a default work for you?
Apparently this is widely deployed on other distros, and seems to be
Apparently and widely lead me to think something is fishy with this
suggestion.
Brian May wrote:
Packages should not fill [the default webroot] directory with any
files. Period. No exceptions. Not even .htaccess files (which normally
shouldn't be used anyway because enabling these slows down web
this accesses - at least according to official Apache documentation).
Not
]] Ben Finney
| We could deal with this as we did for '/usr/share/doc' vs '/usr/doc';
| that is, make '/srv/www/foo' the canonical location but allow a long
| transition period where '/var/www/foo' is permitted as a symlink to
| '/srv/www/foo'.
You can't know the structure of /srv, see the FHS
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 08:58, Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
]] Ben Finney
| We could deal with this as we did for '/usr/share/doc' vs '/usr/doc';
| that is, make '/srv/www/foo' the canonical location but allow a long
| transition period where '/var/www/foo' is permitted as a
Le Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 01:43:12AM +0200, Carl Fürstenberg a écrit :
FHS 2.3 specifies in
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM
to use /srv for Data for services provided by this system, for
example /srv/www for web root.
In the policy, the section
This one time, at band camp, Carl Fürstenberg said:
FHS 2.3 specifies in
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM
to use /srv for Data for services provided by this system, for
example /srv/www for web root.
In the policy, the section
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 16:34, Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Carl Fürstenberg said:
FHS 2.3 specifies in
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM
to use /srv for Data for services provided by this system, for
example
This one time, at band camp, Carl Fürstenberg said:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 16:34, Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Carl Fürstenberg said:
FHS 2.3 specifies in
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM
to use /srv for
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 07:32:33PM +0200, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 16:34, Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Carl Fürstenberg said:
FHS 2.3 specifies in
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM
there means it's a fairly daft idea to have a
webroot pointing there and expect anything to work out of the box.
I was refering to the use of /var/www, which isn't FHS valid, and no
excemption is made in the policy about that.
--
/Carl Fürstenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
there means it's a fairly daft idea to have a
webroot pointing there and expect anything to work out of the box.
I was refering to the use of /var/www, which isn't FHS valid, and no
excemption is made in the policy about that.
The FHS is not an exhaustive list of every directory on the system, so
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 07:36:33PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
I was refering to the use of /var/www, which isn't FHS valid, and no
excemption is made in the policy about that.
The FHS is not an exhaustive list of every directory on the system, so
I'm not convinced that introducing a new
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 06:58:09PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
So you vote for an exemption from FSH in this case, as per 9.1.1?
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/fhs/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM
Therefore, no program should rely on a specific subdirectory
Edward Allcutt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
quote
Purpose
/srv contains site-specific data which is served by this system.
/quote
To me site-specific implies not installed by the package manager.
I believe it's quite reasonable for apache, CVS, etc. to set up a
default location under
On Sunday 20 July 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 06:58:09PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
I think it's perfectly in keeping with other parts of policy to ship our
webservers with /srv/www as the default webroot, and leave it up to the
I think that this is a terrible idea.
This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 06:58:09PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
So you vote for an exemption from FSH in this case, as per
9.1.1?
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/fhs/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM
FHS 2.3 specifies in
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM
to use /srv for Data for services provided by this system, for
example /srv/www for web root.
In the policy, the section
9.1.1(http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#s9.1.1)
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 01:43:12AM +0200, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
FHS 2.3 specifies in
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM
to use /srv for Data for services provided by this system, for
example /srv/www for web root.
In the policy, the section
Carl Fürstenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should we force all httpd:s to use /srv/www instead of /var/www, or
should an exception to the policy be added?
I think there's no hardship if we support the FHS location, so an
exception shouldn't be made.
What do you mean by force all [HTTP
38 matches
Mail list logo
