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 symlink to > | '/srv/www/foo'. > > You can't know the structure of /srv, see the FHS rationale: > > The methodology used to name subdirectories of /srv is unspecified > as there is currently no consensus on how this should be done. One > method for structuring data under /srv is by protocol, eg. ftp, > rsync, www, and cvs. On large systems it can be useful to structure > /srv by administrative context, such as /srv/physics/www, > /srv/compsci/cvs, etc. This setup will differ from host to > host. 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. > > As long as the structure is unspecified, it is just about impossible > to me to have a sane default pointing to anywhere in /srv (except > directly at /srv itself) as that directory might very well not exist. > I would argue shipping a /srv/www is a bug if the site does not use > that layout. > > -- > Tollef Fog Heen > UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
I just noticed in section 10.5 that /var/www should be used, so I have filed an bug against the policy that 10.5 contradicts 9.1. -- /Carl Fürstenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
