On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Oden Eriksson wrote:
onsdagen den 8 oktober 2003 02.57 skrev Stew Benedict:
Keep in mind that FHS is strongly pushing /srv, such as /srv/www now for
apache and other services. (hosted files, not configs)
As stupid as the /package stuff by DJB. What's the point?
Ainsi parlait Vincent Danen :
On Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:48:29PM +0200, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Oden.. nice to see, but you didn't install it in a good way.
You have include/ exposed, which would have been fine for 0.2.3 or
earlier, but the layout should really be something like:
onsdagen den 8 oktober 2003 02.57 skrev Stew Benedict:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
The point was to use /var/www/html/%{name} for every application, and to
use FHS compliant location for non-web files. If you have a configuration
directory for anthill, it seems for me more
On Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 07:48:29PM +0200, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Oden.. nice to see, but you didn't install it in a good way.
You have include/ exposed, which would have been fine for 0.2.3 or earlier,
but the layout should really be something like:
/var/www/anthill
rather than
On Mon Oct 06, 2003 at 08:59:27PM +0200, Oden Eriksson wrote:
Oden.. nice to see, but you didn't install it in a good way.
You have include/ exposed, which would have been fine for 0.2.3 or earlier,
but the layout should really be something like:
/var/www/anthill
rather than
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
The point was to use /var/www/html/%{name} for every application, and to use
FHS compliant location for non-web files. If you have a configuration
directory for anthill, it seems for me more logical to use /etc/anthill for
it than
On Fri Oct 03, 2003 at 01:01:07AM +0200, Oden Eriksson wrote:
Oden.. nice to see, but you didn't install it in a good way.
You have include/ exposed, which would have been fine for 0.2.3 or earlier,
but the layout should really be something like:
/var/www/anthill
rather than
Ainsi parlait Vincent Danen :
On Fri Oct 03, 2003 at 01:01:07AM +0200, Oden Eriksson wrote:
Oden.. nice to see, but you didn't install it in a good way.
You have include/ exposed, which would have been fine for 0.2.3 or earlier,
but the layout should really be something like:
måndagen den 6 oktober 2003 17.44 skrev Vincent Danen:
On Fri Oct 03, 2003 at 01:01:07AM +0200, Oden Eriksson wrote:
Oden.. nice to see, but you didn't install it in a good way.
You have include/ exposed, which would have been fine for 0.2.3 or earlier,
but the layout should really be
