On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 13:24:03 +0200 Joachim Breitner <nome...@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Marvin, > > Am Samstag, den 22.08.2015, 16:47 -0400 schrieb Marvin Renich: > > I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that part of the > > purpose of /srv was to allow complete admin discretion with the > > directory structure, and that distributions were not to mandate any > > specific directory names. > > > > A low-priority debconf question asking the admin what directory to > > use, suggesting /srv/local-apt-repository, would satisfy that. If > > the question is not asked (or preseeded) the package would remain > > unconfigured. This would not be the only package to require > > explicit admin configuration to be operational, and the required > > configuration would be very minimal. (See below for an explanation of, why I think a debconf question would be better, though more complicated)) > With pow-priority, you mean one that does not get shown by default? > But is that much better than allowing the interested admin to change > the configuration afterwards? > > > Both apache2 and lighttpd use /var/www/html as the default > > directory to serve, and do not touch /srv automatically. I don't > > know of any Debian package that puts files in /srv. > > Note that my package does _not_ touch or put files in /srv. It merely > uses files that are put in a certain directory that, that the admin > has to create first. Does that mitigate your concerns? A problem, that I see with this, is that someone might already use /srv/local-apt-repository for something else. If that something is an apt repository (which is not unlikely with the given name) you might accidentally install files on your system, that weren't intended to be installed. With a debconf question, the admin is confronted with the fact, that this directory will be read, before doing so. If you don't want to do the debconf stuff, I offer to do it, as I have to get to know maintainer scripts and debconf anyway. Regards Sven
