On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 12:09:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > For new packages, grouping everything in /usr/share/www sounds like a good > idea. The alias name, « vendor », I find a bit disturbing because we do not > sell anything. But picking the name will be the priviledge of the Do-o-crat > who > will lead the transition, I presume.
Well, it is actually pretty common in cross-distro lingo, Debian is a vendor as well as pretty much every other distro is. The advantage of settling on such a name IMO would be a higher chance in making it popular in other distros. Also, it is a name that I _think_ is pretty unlike to be used by local admins. > Still, having /usr/share/www as a document root does not prevent complex > packages to be fragmented between /usr/share, /usr/lib/cgi-bin/, /var/lib/, > /var/tmp, /var/run and /etc. Maybe you can double-check how many web servers > are able to cope with that before starting to invest a lot of time. Otherwise, > since shipping configuration files in /etc/webserver/conf.d will still be > necessary for these packages to work, there will little benefit in moving > files > to /usr/share/www. I don't understand this argument. Sure, complex packages will be split in several dirs, our policy states the rule for that to happen. The whole point of this standardization is to have a single URL prefix under which _entry_points_ for shipped web applications can be found, no matter how the applications are deployed on the filesystem. I found such a goal worthwhile by itself and orthogonal to the other concern you raise. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature