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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Sat Oct 21 13:43:03 UTC 2006

On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 01:29:02PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le samedi 21 octobre 2006 à 13:06 +0200, Axel Thimm a écrit :
> > 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 package TFTP, FTP, SMB, CIFS, DAV servers...
> They all need a default root in their config file.

There is no root for smb/cifs/nfs. The number of services that really
require a root to be able to do something at all are quite limited.

> The FHS makes it abundantly clear this root must be somewhere in /srv.

Like for imap and nis where the FHS contradicts with itself on this

I don't think we should interprete the FHS that we are to hardwire
stuff into /srv forcing users to abandon their favourite
methology. That would lead to admins quitting Fedora due to not being
able to use it for their purposes. Or they would ignore /srv and
create a new /srv2. Both of which are not what we'd like to happen.

Let's try to find a compromise: Would a special subfolder of /srv like
/srv/default/{www,ftp,...} make you and me happy? It would have the
least impact on user chosen metholodgy [1] and all services could move
to there. Deal?

BTW the FHS is currently being revised, if we'd like to make a
suggestion (for example a special subfolder under /srv designated to
be vendor owned) we should hurry up.

[1] Unless s/o have a domain called "default", /srv/default is just a
    suggestion of the top of my head, there may be better ones.
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/d61d04c9/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list