Hi, On Saturday 22 July 2006 18:34, you wrote: > Yes, and if you ship files in /srv, then your package is creating and > insisting upon a particular structure in /srv. Even if the binaries in > the package don't insist, the *package* is insisting.
Yup. That's a structure my package created. Obviously I can depend on that.
This is different to a structure the FHS mandates, like for example in /var:
in /var you can rely on /var/lib, /var/log, ... - there is no such structure
the FHS mandates for /srv. That's what is ment with that sentence.
> If the local
> administrator decides they want to organize /srv differently, your files
> get in the way. If they delete them or move them, every time the package
> is upgraded, they're re-installed. To me, that seems to break the point
> that the above paragraph is driving at.
Not to me :) I agree it's annoying, but it's the same as today with
say, /var/www. If I delete it, because I use /srv/www, an upgrade of apache
recreates that directory, while it doesnt change my config.
> Certainly, I can see shipping configuration that points to /srv for local
> data by default, and even a postinst that creates an initial structure in
> /srv for the package if this is the first install, but putting the files
> directly in the package seems to me to be forcing more structure than is
> allowed here.
So you agree that the lintian error is wrong :)
> Maybe we should take this to debian-policy and see what other folks think?
Sure. Go ahead. And thanks for caring!
> I could be wrong and I'm happy to change lintian accordingly if the
> consensus is that I'm wrong.
Obviously I could be wrong as well... ;)
regards,
Holger
pgpVdk6QJswjY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
