[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [RFC] /var versus /srv



On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:28:11 -0600
Lamont Peterson <lamont gurulabs com> wrote:

> > we can't prepopulate it with anything,  
> 
> Why not?  I have yet to see a single, viable argument on this list to
> explain why having /srv/web/ or /srv/ftp/ can't work as a starting
> point for a distribution nor for Fedora.  Don't get me wrong, there
> have been a few ideas put forth, but so far, none of them have held
> water.

Because the FHS is broken on this issue.  They claim that it's for site
admins to use and distributions can't layout any files that may
disrupt or overwrite what a site admin may already have in place.

> 
> > and we can't assume what the
> > local admin will use for a scheme.  /srv/<site>/{web,ftp,backup}
> > or /srv/{web,ftp,backup}/<site> or some other combo.  
> 
> What does it matter?  If someone is going to change /var/www/
> and /var/ftp/ and others to a per-site organization, they're already
> doing something different from what is default on any UNIX or
> UNIX-like OS that I know of.
> 
> Besides, SELinux won't care.  You simply assign the right types to
> the per-site www/, ftp/, etc. directories and it will just work.
> Yes, I know, the parent directory structure will still have to allow
> those services to get there, too; again, if someone is reorganizing
> "against-the-grain," then they'll have to deal with that either way.

Wrong, see Steve's mail.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]