Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

2009-11-10 Thread Neil McGovern
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

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

2009-11-10 Thread Stefan Fritsch
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 > > >

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

2009-11-10 Thread sean finney
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

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

2009-11-10 Thread Jan Hauke Rahm
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

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

2009-11-09 Thread Russ Allbery
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

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

2009-11-09 Thread sean finney
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'

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

2009-11-09 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
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

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

2009-11-09 Thread Jan Hauke Rahm
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

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

2009-11-09 Thread Charles Plessy
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/, >

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

2009-11-09 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
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

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

2009-11-09 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
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

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

2009-11-08 Thread Henrik Andreasson
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

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

2009-11-07 Thread Jan Hauke Rahm
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

Re: Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

2009-11-07 Thread Charles Plessy
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

Possible MBF wrt common, FHS-compliant, default document root for the various web servers

2009-11-07 Thread Jan Hauke Rahm
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