On الثلاثاء 13 كانون الثاني 2015 22:34, Russ Allbery wrote:
Yes, you're entirely right -- this is weird and kind of contradictory and
it's hard to figure out just what this was supposed to mean. What I
spelled out is what we arrived at in previous discussion, but there may be
other possible interpretations. But it's hard to figure out a way to use
/srv by default in packages and not end up tromping on whatever structure
the administrator sets up there, and a lot of sites use /srv in various
internal ways.
One interpretation that people have taken in some packages is to require
that any path in /srv be configurable with debconf via package
installation, but that's a little dubious since prompting should be
avoided wherever possible, and not everyone's comfortable with it.
Other distributions that I'm aware of all use /var the same way that
Debian does: as the default location for all data for packages. So just
avoiding using /srv seems to be the consensus interpretation, even though
the words aren't particularly clear.
I see. Thanks-- I really appreciate your explanation.
That sounds like a more appropriate solution if there's no consensus on
how to organize /srv in the first place. Would it (making data locations
configurable) be something to consider adding to the policy as a
recommendation?
Sure, absolutely.
I don't know if I'm going to push for this, though. So far, the packages
I'm concerned with do allow reconfiguration of the data storage
location. In the end, it looks like things are as good as they can be
given the state of the FHS.
Thanks and regards,
Afif
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54b78c0...@openmailbox.org
