Jan Hauke Rahm writes:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 03:55:58PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> sean finney writes:
>>> something that hasn't really been brought up (i mentioned it on the
>>> non-webapps thread in -devel already) is that this makes packages
>>> potentially opened in an unconfigured st
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 03:23:22PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> Full ack, and I even like /usr/share/www. It's easy to understand and
> pretty unprobable that we'd have a package called www in the archive
> some day needing this location.
>
Sorry, I have to disagree with this approach. We woul
I haven't read all of the thread yet, but:
On Monday 09 November 2009, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > > Now, I'm willing to run this, i.e. file bugs against web
> > > servers, wait for them to be fixed, then file bugs against web
> > > applications (if needed, I'm right now looking into a way to
> > >
hi jan,
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:15:43AM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> Not that I'm opposing to what you're saying but... every application in
> the archive is configured during the installation process, possibly
> asking debconf questions, providing defaults etc. After the installation
> it sh
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 03:55:58PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> sean finney writes:
>
> > something that hasn't really been brought up (i mentioned it on the
> > non-webapps thread in -devel already) is that this makes packages
> > potentially opened in an unconfigured state. unless you can ensu
sean finney writes:
> something that hasn't really been brought up (i mentioned it on the
> non-webapps thread in -devel already) is that this makes packages
> potentially opened in an unconfigured state. unless you can ensure that
> the system is only running on localhost, it has some significa
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 06:15:42PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I frankly hope that with /vendor/ + /usr/lib/cgi-bin/ (which we already
> have), and maybe with some symlinks under /vendor/ we will be able to
> address quite a lot of issues. It would be interesting to known which
> one we can'
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:04:22PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> the lintian error dir-or-file-in-var-www exists for a long time, and I
> believe that most packages with active maintainers have already been
> split according to the FHS. What I question is whether it is worth the
> effort to move t
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:21:12AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 03:23:22PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > I still see a problem with the upgrade path for existing installations.
> > I might be wrong but I think the most difficult cases are very custom
> > setups with
Le Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:24:39AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 12:09:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > 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/,
>
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
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 03:23:22PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > > 1. If we have a generic location for packages to drop their
> > >html/php/whatever files, like /var/lib/www, all web servers can keep
> > >their DocRoot as /var/www and provide an alias for /var/lib/www, for
> > >inst
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
Caudium can and will adjust to any standard that the community agrees
upon and it can handle different directories without problem.
I really dont have that much input for how this should be done but leaving
it as it is now is worse.
Thanks for yo
Thanks for your response, Charles!
On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 12:09:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> As a maintainer of a web application, I share your worries. I never had any
> user request to make it work out of the box with alternative web servers, so I
> guess that my users have nothing to ga
Le Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 03:23:22PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm a écrit :
>
> I still see a problem with the upgrade path for existing installations.
> I might be wrong but I think the most difficult cases are very custom
> setups with lots of changes by the local admin. I'm thinking of e.g.
> webmail.do
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 04:39:06PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 10:21:48AM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > Okay, I understand. Now, I see two ways actually to solve this.
> >
> > 1. If we have a generic location for packages to drop their
> >html/php/whatever fil
16 matches
Mail list logo
