-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Why is the www data under /var/www, while ftpd's stuff is under
/home/ftp? Ain't ftp probably more `var'iable than www data
(incoming!)?
I personally thing either the ftp hierarchy should go to /var/ftp, or
the www data should move to /home/www (the
Quoting Juergen A. Erhard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I personally thing either the ftp hierarchy should go to /var/ftp, or
the www data should move to /home/www (the latter I'd prefer).
/home/(ftp|www) is just plain ugly. (It's a real pain when you're trying
to share nfs home dirs between web
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:23:34 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
/home/(ftp|www) is just plain ugly. (It's a real pain when you're trying
to share nfs home dirs between web servers, for example.) I use /var/ftp
on my own system (well, actually
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:26:05 -0800, you wrote:
Major services generally get a root entry from me. Some people
think it is ugly but there is some purity in cd'ing to /www/somebusinesssite/
It outright violates the fhs, though.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:23:34PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
Quoting Juergen A. Erhard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I personally thing either the ftp hierarchy should go to /var/ftp, or
the www data should move to /home/www (the latter I'd prefer).
/home/(ftp|www) is just plain ugly. (It's a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:22:36 GMT, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:26:05 -0800, you wrote:
Major services generally get a root entry from me. Some people
think it is ugly but there is some purity in cd'ing to /www/somebusinesssite/
It
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 09:39:18AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
=20
The only thing my proposal changed was the UID and the GID of the web
server, so that
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 09:39:18AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
The only thing my proposal changed was the UID and the GID of the web
server, so that the web server doesn't have write access to the web
files. It most cases, it is not required that the web server have
write access to its files,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
On Wed, 20 Jan, 1999, Brian May wrote:
Maybe the web files should be owned by www-data and the web
process should be owned by www or httpd? This way the
descriptive names continue to make sense. Practical
speaking, it is probably just as good to make web
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 08:35:23PM +, Edward Betts wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan, 1999, Brian May wrote:
Maybe the web files should be owned by www-data and the web
process should be owned by www or httpd? This way the
descriptive names continue to make sense. Practical
speaking, it is
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 07:36:43PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
1. web files owned by www-data:www-data (ie no group change), and the
web process executed by www:www (for instance). There is no need for
users to be members of root. This would require an extra UID and GID.
But this won't allow
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 07:36:43PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
1. web files owned by www-data:www-data (ie no group change), and the
web process executed by www:www (for instance). There is no need for
users to be members of root. This would require an extra
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Eduardo Marcel Macan wrote:
We seem to have a ever-standing bug against postgresql saying we
cannot have a user called www-data accessing databases (postgresql
complains about the '-' in the name, it looks like it is not a valid char
for postgresql usernames at
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 10:34:27PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
Johnie Ingram wrote:
Eduardo == Eduardo Marcel Macan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eduardo See, I am not suggesting that we change the username
Eduardo to solve the postgres problem, this would solve this problem,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Bart == Bart Schuller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bart Is www-data the uid of the web server process or is it the owner
Bart of the served files?
Hm, good point. At the moment its both -- /var/www is installed as
www-data.www-data, but other packages like
Steve == Steve Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve If you want to confuse operators and operands, you
Steve deserve what you ask for, but no one would call this a bug in
Steve bash (would they?).
I withdraw the --allow-badname suggestion then -- just wish this was
documented in
Edward Betts wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan, 1999, Brian May wrote:
Maybe the web files should be owned by www-data and the web
process should be owned by www or httpd? This way the
descriptive names continue to make sense. Practical
speaking, it is probably just as good to make web files
On Wed, 20 Jan, 1999, Brian May wrote:
Maybe the web files should be owned by www-data and the web
process should be owned by www or httpd? This way the
descriptive names continue to make sense. Practical
speaking, it is probably just as good to make web files
owned by root, however, then the
We seem to have a ever-standing bug against postgresql saying we
cannot have a user called www-data accessing databases (postgresql
complains about the '-' in the name, it looks like it is not a valid char
for postgresql usernames at all). Since I have been making kludges in
several
Eduardo Marcel Macan wrote:
We seem to have a ever-standing bug against postgresql saying we
cannot have a user called www-data accessing databases (postgresql
complains about the '-' in the name, it looks like it is not a valid char
for postgresql usernames at all).
It is possible
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Eduardo Marcel Macan wrote:
started to wonder... Where does the name www-data come from? IS there any
argument against 'www' ?
Or perhaps one might ask why Debian deviated from common practice in naming
the httpd user www-data instead of httpd, like everyone else.
--Jeff
Eduardo == Eduardo Marcel Macan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EduardoSee, I am not suggesting that we change the username
Eduardo to solve the postgres problem, this would solve this problem,
Eduardo but not THE problem with postgres. I am just wondering why it
Eduardo is not called just
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 01:51:39PM -0500, J. S. Connell wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Eduardo Marcel Macan wrote:
started to wonder... Where does the name www-data come from? IS there any
argument against 'www' ?
Or perhaps one might ask why Debian deviated from common practice in naming
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 08:20:23AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 01:51:39PM -0500, J. S. Connell wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Eduardo Marcel Macan wrote:
started to wonder... Where does the name www-data come from? IS there
any
argument against 'www' ?
Or
Bart == Bart Schuller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bart Is www-data the uid of the web server process or is it the owner
Bart of the served files?
Hm, good point. At the moment its both -- /var/www is installed as
www-data.www-data, but other packages like MRTG make subdirs owned by
root. And
Johnie Ingram wrote:
Eduardo == Eduardo Marcel Macan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eduardo See, I am not suggesting that we change the username
Eduardo to solve the postgres problem, this would solve this problem,
Eduardo but not THE problem with postgres. I am just wondering why it
Previously J. S. Connell wrote:
Or perhaps one might ask why Debian deviated from common practice in naming
the httpd user www-data instead of httpd, like everyone else.
Whose common practive? I've been working with HTTP servers since 1994
and I've never used a httpd user..
Wichert.
--
27 matches
Mail list logo
