Luca Barbato wrote: > I'm thinking about adding the srvdir[1] global useflag. > > Scream if I miss some discussion preventing it. > > (fenice[2] will use it, that's why I'm adding it) > > lu > > [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0020.html#implementation > [2] http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=fenice >
Hi all, not a dev, but please bear with me :-) >From [1] above: GLEP: 20 Title: /srv - Services Home Directory Support Version: 1.2 Last-Modified: 2004/11/11 21:35:53 Author: Stuart Herbert <stuart at gentoo.org>, Rob Holland <tigger at gentoo.org> Status: Approved Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 09-Feb-2004 Post-History: 21-Feb-2004, 11-Nov-2004 It is 2006, any updates on this GELP? Just a quick look turned out a 404 error on the FHS2.3 link. ( http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ ?) I am not very read in LSB, but just saw there is a 3.x version... What about LSB 3.x? Is it the same recomendation? Although I run quite a bunch of services on a few boxes, I don't see this whole idea (/srv). I read the GLEP, I read [FHS#srv] but still. And it says: "The methodology used to name subdirectories of /srv is unspecified as there is currently no consensus on how this should be done." So how does Gentoo implement it? [FHS#svg] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM And as the GLEP talks about webapps, what will an upgrade of a webapp (say Bugzilla) to/from srv? I feel it breaking and user screaming. And a few general comments: Hmm, the GLEP index page [a] shows GLEP 20 with status "SA" which according to the legend is "Standards Track + Accepted". The [1] above has status "Approved" which might be the same, but why is not there consistency in terms? If it is approved/accepted doesn't it mean it is implemented by somebody? [a] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/ Kalin. -- |[ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ]| +-> http://ThinRope.net/ <-+ |[ ______________________ ]| -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
