[RFC] /var versus /srv
nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Fri Sep 28 09:30:48 UTC 2007
Le Ven 28 septembre 2007 07:47, Alexander Boström a écrit :
> I've already given my opinion about /srv, but I'll repeat it: If you
> necessarily need to impose a structure on it, put that structure only
> in /srv/lib. Make it /srv/lib/<packagename>.
And this is broken by design. You're mirroring /var organisation when
people have repeatedly told you this organisation was not adapted to
their needs. Swapping /var and /srv does not make it magically sane.
Also you contradict yourself by insisting both on packagename
namespacing and taking a packagename-agnostic layout like /var/www as
What's the point of lib in srv ?
What's the point of forcing packagename in the namespace ?
Admins do not move their http or ftp content just because they've
switched http or ftp server implementation.
The whole point of /srv is admins feel there is data that should be
saved even if system libs are lost. The corollary is the coupling
between this data and binary organisation is loose at best, and moving
/srv to a system with a different set of binaries, different package
repartition, is perfectly valid.
Sure some stuff is package (and often package-version) specific, like
database files. But a lot of it is completely package-agnostic. You
should not force a stonger coupling than is technically required just
because it makes packager life easier.
More information about the fedora-devel-list