[Fedora-packaging] Re: Packaging into /srv? (was: FHS Compliance?)
jorton at redhat.com
Mon Oct 23 16:11:57 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.
I completely agree with this. The FHS policy for /srv is explicitly
worded to have no policy for /srv, so we cannot use it as packagers.
FHS says both that we must not impose any particular directory structure
within /srv, and that we must use /srv as the "default location" for
storing data used by services. The only way to satisfy that would be to
do the equivalent of "DocumentRoot /srv" for every service, which would
be simply stupid.
More information about the Fedora-packaging