On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:34:27AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > So FHS suggests:
> > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM
> > There is no consensus. It's a mess.
> I don't know what lack of consensus you're referring to.
That /srv/www could be also /s
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 06:15:44PM +1000, Kai Hendry wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:05:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > You can suggest it, but top-level directories are governed by the FHS, and
> > you'll have to come up with a pretty strong reason why the existing
> > available director
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:05:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> You can suggest it, but top-level directories are governed by the FHS, and
> you'll have to come up with a pretty strong reason why the existing
> available directories don't address the need.
So FHS suggests:
http://www.pathname.co
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:00:48PM +1000, Kai Hendry wrote:
> I think /usr/share/PACKAGE/www is rather long and clumsy.
> May I suggest a /web directory.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-webapps/2005/06/msg00029.html
You can suggest it, but top-level directories are governed by the FHS, and
you'l
I think /usr/share/PACKAGE/www is rather long and clumsy.
May I suggest a /web directory.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-webapps/2005/06/msg00029.html
The Web application can then store files based on /web/HTTP_HOST.
/usr/share/PACKAGE/www doesn't account for the possibility that more than
one w
5 matches
Mail list logo
