sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > hi paul, ben, et al,
Please follow the guidelines for Debian mailing lists: don't send me a copy of messages unless I ask for one. I read the list. > On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 12:34 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > The methodology used to name subdirectories of /srv is unspecified > > as there is currently no consensus on how this should be done. > > ... Therefore, no program should rely on a specific subdirectory > > structure of /srv existing or data necessarily being stored in > > /srv. However /srv should always exist on FHS compliant systems > > and should be used as the default location for such data. > > > > > > <URL:http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM> > > > > So, for content served by a web server on the system, something under > > '/srv' is necessary to comply with the FHS. The most obvious choice > > seems to be '/srv/www'. > > in the section you quoted above it specifically says no program should > rely on a specific subdirectory, which contradicts what you've just > suggested. Let's try reading that again: ... no program should rely on a specific subdirectory structure of /srv existing or data necessarily being stored in /srv. ... which would apply if the package was going to *rely on the subdirectory existing, or data necessarily being stored in /srv*, which isn't the case. However /srv should always exist on FHS compliant systems and should be used as the default location for such data. which applies if the package is going to configure a location to *store data* that falls under the description of this section, "Data for services provided by this system", which is the case. In which case, the FHS is explicit that "/srv ... should be used as the default location for such data". So much for the FHS: it's clear that data such as that provided by a web server should be stored somewhere under /srv. > secondly, even if there were an outright conflict between debian > policy and the FHS, debian policy wins wrt placement of files and > directories in debian. That's true. Is there such a conflict? The Debian Policy document doesn't specify what document root should be configured by a web server; the closest I can find is: 11.5 Web servers and applications [...] 4. Web Document Root Web Applications should try to avoid storing files in the Web Document Root. Instead they should use the /usr/share/doc/package directory for documents and register the Web Application via the doc-base package. If access to the web document root is unavoidable then use /var/www as the Document Root. This might be just a symbolic link to the location where the system administrator has put the real document root. <URL:http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-customized-programs.html#s-web-appl> which speaks only about what web *applications* should expect, and doesn't speak about what the web *server* package should configure. -- \ "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin | `\ Shivers | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
