On 9/5/07, Roman Kyrylych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2007/9/5, Sergej Pupykin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > >SP> May be more proper way to install web-packages to > > >/usr/share/<webpackage> > > >SP> and default web server root into /srv/www/<webserver>? > > > > I think there is no technical difference where to place web packages > > (except /home of course, wich can be network mounted) > > > > May be voting? :) > > > > Web package: > > 1 - /srv/www/<package> > > 2 - /var/www/<package> > > 3 - /usr/share/<package> > > 4 - other > > > > Web server default root: > > 1 - /srv/www/<server> > > 2 - /var/www/<server> > > 3 - other > > > > From FHS 2.3: > > /srv : Data for services provided by this system > > Purpose > > /srv contains site-specific data which is served by this system. > > > Rationale: This main purpose of specifying this is so that users may find > the location of the data files for particular service, and so that > services > which require a single tree for readonly data, writable data and scripts > (such as cgi scripts) can be reasonably placed. Data that is only of > interest to a specific user should go in that users' home directory. > > 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. > > Distributions must take care not to remove locally placed files in these > directories without administrator permission. > > So... /srv/www/<servername> ?. > > -- > Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич) > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > arch@archlinux.org > http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch >
But I want the bikeshed to be red! Seriously guys- this is getting out of hand. Obviously not everyone is going to come to consensus, so stop trying to reach it. Basically it is up to the maintainer of the web packages and web servers to decide what to do, and that is that. My two cents- users don't want their index.html and conf files overwritten on Apache/lighttpd/nginx upgrade, so ensure we don't do that. In addition, users running a web server better not fall into the trap of zeroconf- I think we can somewhat agree that these things should be carefully set up. Finally, saying "many users do this..."- you have data to back this up? Let's please not make general statements that you aren't sure on. -Dan _______________________________________________ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
