Heya, sorry for the delay.
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:15:56PM +0100, sean finney wrote:
> > Inherently, such a proposal applies to static content, not CGI
> > applications. I fail to see where lay problems about unconfigured static
> > content.
>
> read-only static content unpacked from packages
hi stefano,
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:09:20AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I understand this problem, but I think you're shooting at the wrong
> target. The advanced proposal (beside the aesthetically displeasing
> name) is about standardizing a default vendor document root on disk so
> tha
Sorry for the delay in replying to this. I've just re-read all the
disagreements with the original proposal and they all seem to be related
to this main counter-argument by Sean, hence I'll reply here.
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 11:50:11PM +0100, sean finney wrote:
> > FWIW, I'm fine with /vendor.
>
On Tuesday 10 November 2009, sean finney wrote:
> someone ought to file a wishlist bug against php5. at the very
> least there could be a debconf prompt controlling the global
> status of php, and i think there's a strong case for arguing that
> apps shouldn't assume that it's on by default.
I
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
>> Support for multiple independent instances configured to use arbitrary
>> locations for data/configuration, arbitrary vhosts and arbitrary
>> sub-paths of those vhosts.
>
> That means: as many files reusable by each instance as possible, t
hi!
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:29:13AM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > Support for multiple independent instances configured to use arbitrary
> > locations for data/configuration, arbitrary vhosts and arbitrary
> > sub-paths of those vhosts.
>
> That means: as many files reusable by each instanc
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:49:10AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:50 AM, sean finney wrote:
>
> > personally, beyond the aesthetically displeasing name, i'm really
> > skeptical that this will accomplish anything useful.
> >
> > * most apps require extra config and splitting
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:50 AM, sean finney wrote:
> personally, beyond the aesthetically displeasing name, i'm really
> skeptical that this will accomplish anything useful.
>
> * most apps require extra config and splitting out of stuff into other
> directories for fhs compliance anyway, thus
hi guys,
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 02:56:59PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > To try making it a bit less ugly (and hard to type due to the moving
> > nature of "-" as others have pointed out), I just try to mediate with
> > "/vendor/".
>
> FWIW, I'm fine with /vendor.
personally, beyond the aest
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:15:00AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 06:53:32PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Something short, generic and distro-neutral like /app/ would be my
> > > personal preference if I were developing a standard for my servers.
> > > Unfortunat
On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 06:53:32PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Something short, generic and distro-neutral like /app/ would be my
> > personal preference if I were developing a standard for my servers.
> > Unfortunately, going that direction as also increases the chances of
> > remapping a p
Le Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 04:16:54PM +, Tzafrir Cohen a écrit :
>
> "To see your locally-installed documentation, use:
>
> http://localhost/vendor-apps/dwww
> "
Hello Tzafrir,
native Debian applications are actually the ones which have the least benefit
from this. I like a lot doc-central,
On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 06:53:32PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06 2009, The Fungi wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 01:11:47PM +0100, Harald Braumann wrote:
> >> /debian/ seems to be the de facto standard for Debian archives. So I
> >> guess it wouldn't be such a good idea to u
I'm commenting a bit between the paragraphs to sharpen my mind :)
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 08:09:18PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> What I was aiming to is a kind of document root which is under full
> control of the package manager; hence where the sysadm cannot touch
> anything by hand. That
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 07:15:55PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> I don't get it. This would of course solve the problem of FHS compliance
> but apart from that it doesn't gain anything, does it?
> Now, do I totally misunderstand the issue here, or are we just moving
> the /var/www problem to /var/
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:03:20AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli dijo [Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 05:50:01PM +0100]:
> > > Uhm, why postpone this so long? I'd hope we could find a consensus quite
> > > soon.
> > > Then, we might not be able to fix _all_ web apps until squeeze, but at
Stefano Zacchiroli dijo [Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 05:50:01PM +0100]:
> > Uhm, why postpone this so long? I'd hope we could find a consensus quite
> > soon.
> > Then, we might not be able to fix _all_ web apps until squeeze, but at
> > least
> > tthose few with dir-or-file-in-var-www :-)
>
> I see
17 matches
Mail list logo
