[RFC] /var versus /srv

Lamont Peterson lamont at gurulabs.com
Fri Sep 28 22:23:46 UTC 2007

Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:13:05 -0600
Richi Plana <myfedora at richip.dhs.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 14:09 +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
> > fre 2007-09-28 klockan 12:41 +0200 skrev Benny Amorsen:
> > 
> > > There's no reason to have the spurious lib there.
> > 
> > The reasoning behind /srv/lib is that it's relatively unlikely to
> > already be in use and it is similar in purpose and look to /usr/lib
> > and /var/lib. Remember, you're adding structure to a directory that
> > has previously been marked as open territory. Thread lightly.
> "lib" does not make any sense. It didn't for /var/lib/(www|
> mysql|<whatever>) and it certainly doesn't for /srv.

Agreed.  After all "lib" is short for "library", is it not?  What does "library" have to do with, well, anything that's currently found under the /var/lib/ directory?
> If collision avoidance is what you're interested in, name
> it /srv/fedora[(-services)]/<packagename> or something. Personally,
> I'm fine with anything. The sanity that administering and maintaining
> systems that moving data to /srv brings is enough to satisfy me.
> As for ensuring that all the data that needs long-term storage be
> moved from /var: I don't see how that could be hard, but it will be a
> long, drawn-out process. Definitely worth the effort, though.

- -- 
Lamont Peterson <lamont at gurulabs.com>
Senior Instructor
Guru Labs, L.C. [ http://www.GuruLabs.com/ ]

NOTE:  All messages from this email address should be digitally signed with my
       0xDC0DD409 GPG key. It is available on the pgp.mit.edu keyserver as
       well as other keyservers that sync with MIT's.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list