On 04/17/2012 04:38 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> The new document root is supposed to be the default vhosts document
> root (there is no need to distinguish between default vhost and no
> vhost). Other vhosts can be put in other sub directories in /var/www/,
> like /var/www/www.example.com or /va
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 16.04.2012 18:59, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> Defining a standard for vhosts would solve the problem without having
>> to touch the normal doc root. Seems like a far simpler fix.
>
> how would you do that? We can't control or enforce what dire
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Arno Töll wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 16.04.2012 18:56, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
>>> /srv is solely the domain of the sysadmin, packages cannot rely on any
>>> particular layout not specified by the sysadmin (via debcon
On 17.04.2012 09:41, Marcin Kulisz wrote:
> I had problems with running anything with suexec outside /var/ and
> recompilation was needed to make it possible.
As Simon says, you can install apache2-suexec-custom. That brings you a
configurable suexec, but that's completely our own stuff unsupp
On 17/04/12 03:46, Paul Wise wrote:
> What if the sysadmin chose to use
> /srv/http/east-coast/foo.bar.org.vhost/ for the foo.bar.org vhost? Can
> they still use suexec?
Not the normal version, no, because suexec hard-codes the top directory
/var/www as a security measure (you can never use it to
On 2012-04-17 10:46:17, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>
> > Suexec's compiled-in document root would stay at /var/www so that it
> > would include all vhost document roots. And dspam-webfrontend could
> > keep its files in /var/www/dspam, inside suexec's
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> Suexec's compiled-in document root would stay at /var/www so that it
> would include all vhost document roots. And dspam-webfrontend could
> keep its files in /var/www/dspam, inside suexec's document root,
> without polluting the default doc
On Monday 16 April 2012, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> > /srv is solely the domain of the sysadmin, packages cannot rely
> > on any particular layout not specified by the sysadmin (via
> > debconf etc).
>
> I know. Is that a problem though?
> AFAIK
On Monday 16 April 2012, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Arno Töll wrote:
> >> I'd use ht instead of html. Not every ht file is a html file.
> >
> > I have no strong opinion on the actual name, as long as it is
> > another subdirectory. We could equally use /var/www/de
Hi,
On 16.04.2012 18:56, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
>> /srv is solely the domain of the sysadmin, packages cannot rely on any
>> particular layout not specified by the sysadmin (via debconf etc).
>
> I know. Is that a problem though?
> AFAIK pack
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Arno Töll wrote:
>> I'd use ht instead of html. Not every ht file is a html file.
>
> I have no strong opinion on the actual name, as long as it is another
> subdirectory. We could equally use /var/www/default, /var/www/htdocs or
> whatever we feel like.
What abou
Hi,
On 16.04.2012 18:59, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> Defining a standard for vhosts would solve the problem without having
> to touch the normal doc root. Seems like a far simpler fix.
how would you do that? We can't control or enforce what directory people
pick for their virtual hosts. We do not
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> /srv is solely the domain of the sysadmin, packages cannot rely on any
> particular layout not specified by the sysadmin (via debconf etc).
I know. Is that a problem though?
AFAIK packages don't (and shouldn't) put any files into vhost dirs.
-
Hi,
On 15.04.2012 12:29, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> I'd use ht instead of html. Not every ht file is a html file.
I have no strong opinion on the actual name, as long as it is another
subdirectory. We could equally use /var/www/default, /var/www/htdocs or
whatever we feel like.
I only proposed /
On 15.04.2012 04:23, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'd like us to consider switching to /var/lib/www for FHS compliance.
> This does have the significant drawback of breaking backward compatibility
> to at least some extent, but it's FHS-compliant (or at least is as good as
> we're going to get for a defau
]] Olaf van der Spek
> FHS says /srv contains site-specific data which is served by this system.
> Besides, it's the admin that's going to populate the space, so if it's
> not enough, he can change the location.
You're going to end up with some packages creating directories in /srv
with the wron
On 04/15/2012 07:21 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> That's what you get with silly partitioning. :p
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a joke, but if it is, it's not
really funny (because it's been re-occurring so many times).
Each time there's a change proposed that will affect people with a
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> I'd use ht instead of html. Not every ht file is a html file.
>>
>> We should consider vhosts as well. Lighttpd defaults to
>> /srv//htdocs (for mod simple vhost). ht instead of htdocs might
>> be better.
>>
>> We could use /srv/default/ht
On 04/15/2012 06:29 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Arno Töll wrote:
>
>> Thus, to summarize once again: I'd like to change the default directory
>> served by web servers from /var/www to /var/www/html along with
>> remaining web servers in Debian.
>>
>> Comments
On 04/15/2012 08:25 AM, Arno Töll wrote:
> Thus, to summarize once again: I'd like to change the default directory
> served by web servers from /var/www to /var/www/html along with
> remaining web servers in Debian.
>
> Comments?
>
I support this.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> We should consider vhosts as well. Lighttpd defaults to
> /srv//htdocs (for mod simple vhost). ht instead of htdocs might
> be better.
>
> We could use /srv/default/ht as the default doc root.
> FHS: /srv : Data for services provided by t
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Arno Töll wrote:
> Thus, to summarize once again: I'd like to change the default directory
> served by web servers from /var/www to /var/www/html along with
> remaining web servers in Debian.
>
> Comments?
I'd use ht instead of html. Not every ht file is a html fi
On Apr 15, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> packages should have a debconf question for the document root,
No, because this would require making every package significantly more
complex. Not just because of asking the question, but the configuration
files would not be conffiles anymore.
And it would be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/15/2012 02:25 AM, Arno Töll wrote:
> /srv can't be used either as no path hierarchy is specified for
> /srv (e.g. think of /srv/www) and we really do not want to serve
> the entire /srv hierarchy as a document root either.
packages should have a
Arno Töll writes:
> Unless I'm missing something there is no better location for HTTP
> documents mentioned within the FHS. Note /srv can't be used either as no
> path hierarchy is specified for /srv (e.g. think of /srv/www) and we
> really do not want to serve the entire /srv hierarchy as a docu
Hello,
(please keep replies limited to -devel; I'd just like to point relevant
maintainers to this thread)
I'd like to discuss a change related to the default document root for
HTTP servers in Debian. On behalf of the Apache maintainers I consider
this change a worthwhile idea, but we would like t
26 matches
Mail list logo
