Packaging into /srv? (was: FHS Compliance?)

[Joe Orton]

On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 01:06:31PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> No, /srv should exist, but otherwise be empty from the vendor's POV
> (e.g. no package should own/place anything beneath /srv). We should
> neither impose /srv/<service>, nor /srv/<service>/<domain>, nor
> /srv/<domain>/<service> methods.

I completely agree with this.  The FHS policy for /srv is explicitly 
worded to have no policy for /srv, so we cannot use it as packagers.

FHS says both that we must not impose any particular directory structure 
within /srv, and that we must use /srv as the "default location" for 
storing data used by services.  The only way to satisfy that would be to 
do the equivalent of "DocumentRoot /srv" for every service, which would 
be simply stupid.

joe