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

Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org
Sat Oct 21 17:32:42 UTC 2006

On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 01:06:31PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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.

I see it as analogous to /usr/local -- that's the local admin's domain, but
Fedora *does* populate it with some typical subdirectories.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to ship with the default document
root at /srv/www, which would be empty by default. If you make anything else
the document root, many people are just going to edit stuff *there*.

Anyone who wants a different arrangement than the default can edit the
document root in httpd.conf, no problem, but there'd be a sensible and
standard default already. From the FHS:

   Therefore, no program should rely on a specific subdirectory structure of
   /srv existing or data necessarily being stored in /srv. However /srv
   should always exist on FHS compliant systems and should be used as the
   default location for such data.

What I'm suggesting covers both parts of this, not just the first.

> 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.

For some reason, this doesn't really feel right to me. Nothing else works
like this....

Matthew Miller           mattdm at mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list