Op vrijdag 06-11-2009 om 19:12 uur [tijdzone +0000], schreef Graham Percival: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 06:54:19PM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > > Op vrijdag 06-11-2009 om 17:44 uur [tijdzone +0000], schreef Graham > > Percival: > > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 08:24:11AM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> What's the reason to keep the /web/ part? I mean, is it something > to do with the way the server is set up? Partly. The root is the only space in /var that we have for LilyPond, so there's other stuff there. Having everything in one directory means that it's very easy to administer, ie you can do rsync -avz --delete into web/. That also means it is easy to switch to a new site using a single .htaccess rule or symlink. So it was these considerations and possibly laziness that made us decide to use web/. It would have been easy enough /not/ to put stuff in web/, look at the 'old' website's GNUmakefile, it just rsyncs stuff into web/. Remove the prefix and there you are. So this is why I want to give this a bit of extra thought. Other things to consider are stability of external links. Have you seen the .htaccess file lately? I fear that if we move stuff to toplevel [and/or possibly back later] things will become unmanageable. Having the web/ prefix makes it easier to do fixups and redirects, I think. > In terms of the documentation / user experience, I don't think > that having /web/ adds anything; it just makes the URLs four > characters longer. That's the con, it's somehow uncool to have the main web at /web, instead of at . Greetings, Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter Avatar®: http://AvatarAcademy.nl | http://lilypond.org _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
