On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 01:14:05AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: > 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 > > > "Therefore, no program should rely on a specific subdirectory > > > structure of /srv existing or data necessarily being stored in /srv. > > 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 administrator to symlink web applications into that root to > > enable them (or change the web root, or use aliases, etc). In > > particular, Policy 11.5.4 says that web applications should avoid > > storing files in the web document root if possible. > 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 is "rely[ing] on a specific subdirectory structure of /srv existing or data necessarily being stored in /srv", because the web server can be reconfigured to look elsewhere. > I agree that it's a bad idea for applications to store things under the > webroot in general, but that's a seperate issue altogether to changing > what the default webroot points to. If we could keep the seperate issues > seperate for the moment, I think it would be helpful. If your objection to using /srv/www as the default web root isn't about applications storing files there, then why do you object to it? Is it because it would be "wildly inappropriate" on your systems? > a) applications installing random files under web root - bad > b) Changing httpds to ship a web root that either doesn't exist or would > be wildly inappropriate on every system I admin - also bad. Does "wildly inappropriate" mean that shipping such a default would incorrectly expose data to the network that wasn't meant to be exposed? > Doing the change you recommend also has the downside of guaranteeing > that no web application that has to ship files under the web root can > work out of the box. Admittedly these applications are probably silly, > but not currently buggy. Well, I consider that an upside rather than a downside; I don't think there's any excuse for a package enabling a web app by default, and would be happy to see such packages declared buggy - which I agree could be handled separately from /srv/www. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
