On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 01:23:24AM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Friday 09 December 2005 16:07, Holger Levsen wrote: > > policy currently mandates FHS 2.1, while FHS 2.3 is the current upstream > > version. /srv is not mentioned in FHS 2.1 - but /srv is created by > > base-files or debootstrap even in sarge (cannot find it in the code at a > > quick glance.. the base-files/FAQ says its debotstrap, but whatever..
> > In #340608 Steve Langasek writes "FHS 2.3 for etch is still an open > > question, as there are some transition issues. But as far as I'm > > concerned, /srv is fine for packages to begin using." > > In > > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSY > >STEM /srv is described as "/srv contains site-specific data which is served > > by this system. Rationale: This main purpose of specifying this is so that > > users may find the location of the data files for particular service, and > > so that services which require a single tree for readonly data, writable > > data and scripts (such as cgi scripts) can be reasonably placed. [...]" > > So my question is simply: should packages begin using /srv now ? What is > > the release teams opinion and decission on this ? (Steve commented on IRC > > that it would be good to have this decission made by the team and in an > > archived media.) > I'm still patiently waiting for a reply... If no one else has any comments, I guess you can take that for silent agreement with my position. :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
