[Fedora-packaging] Re: Packaging into /srv? (was: FHS Compliance?)

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 06:58:19AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 04:14:51AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > That's correct. Furthermore the FHS supports different hierarchies
> > below /srv depending on the site's needs. For example a server hosting
> > project1.org and project2.org would use
> > /srv/project1.org/www and
> > /srv/project2.org/www
> > So /srv should be kept free of any package bits. I'm copying the
> > packaging list, perhaps it's worth noting in the guide.
> 
> As noted in the bug, I think that default, package-managed files should be
> packaged into /usr/share/somewhere,

I agree.

> but /srv/www (or /srv/www/something/) should be the default (empty,
> except maybe a README) document directory.

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. These are really very specific to the
solution needed and prefering any of these will make the other users
unhappy, and in this case all three mentioned solution have probably
the same or very comparable share of users.

Instead provide anything, as you write, under /usr/share, as a
template to be copied by the user somewhere under /srv according to
his needs (or some similar mechanism).

A copy-to-somewhere script could be rpovided, too. For example
fedora-install-mediawiki <path> or fedora-install-bugzilla <path> to
name two projects that are often used in several incarnations on one
system.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20061021/72831df0/attachment.sig>