On 20-Jun-2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 02:12:56PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > - service-published content goes somewhere under /srv/
> > - /srv/ is site-defined
> > - thus shouldn't be clobbered by the package manager
>
> > That last one's a bit of a blocker, isn'
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 02:12:56PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> So we have:
> - static content goes somewhere under /usr/
> - static, platform-independent content goes somewhere under
> /usr/share/
> - static, platform-independent content for PACKAGE goes under
> /usr/share/PACKAGE/
On 20-Jun-2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:58:40 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > (va, manoj)> said:
> > > /src/webapps/PACKAGE, perhaps?
> > Arrgh. /srv/webapps/PACKAGE, I meant.
>
> AFAICT, the FHS specifies that the structure of /srv is
> si
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 09:06:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:58:40 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va,
> manoj)> said:
> > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 18:55:33 +0200, Miguel Gea Milvaques
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> Hi, On policy 11.5.4 says: "Web Applica
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:58:40 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va,
manoj)> said:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 18:55:33 +0200, Miguel Gea Milvaques
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Hi, On policy 11.5.4 says: "Web Applications should try to avoid
>> storing files in the Web Document Root. Instead
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 18:55:33 +0200, Miguel Gea Milvaques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Hi, On policy 11.5.4 says: "Web Applications should try to avoid
> storing files in the Web Document Root. Instead they should use the
> /usr/share/doc/package directory for documents and register the Web
> Appl
Hi,
This seems like a reasonable suggestion, especially if it is
compatible with LSB strictures. Are there any objections to allowing
policy to mention an optional status command for initscripts?
I am seconding this proposal. Any others?
manoj
--
perfect guest: One who
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:34:27AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > So FHS suggests:
> > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM
> > There is no consensus. It's a mess.
> I don't know what lack of consensus you're referring to.
That /srv/www could be also /s
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 10:35:04AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 18:23 +1000, Kai Hendry wrote:
> > /srv/www could be /srv/physics/www according to the FHS! Hardly a
> > standard IMO.
> > /web or /www gives prominence to Debian as a Web platform and HTTP_HOST
> > is concret
Chris Waters dijo [Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:55:56AM -0700]:
> > > No problem for me. But It could give little problems. On one of my
> > > machines a was beholden to remove /usr/share/doc directory, it broke my
> > > ldap-account-manager installation.
> >
> > Note: /usr/share/PACKAGE/www, not /usr/
ATTENTION - Immediate Action Required
This is your Third and Final Notification, there now are two potential deals
for your review.
Please note that past credit history is a non-factor as long as you (or your
spouse) are still employed.
Verify your information with our secure form to ensure o
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:55:56AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Note: /usr/share/PACKAGE/www, not /usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/www.
> > Removing /usr/share/doc should not impact this web suggestion.
>
> And what happens if my WebApp package is named "doc"? Or "applnk"? Or
> "keymaps" or "locale" or
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 12:39:12AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 12:03:01AM +0200, Miguel Gea Milvaques wrote:
> > > Also, as this is a draft, the useage of "/usr/share/PACKAGE/www" may
> > > change. IMO, it's probably not going to, but it may be worth keeping
> > > (main)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 06:15:44PM +1000, Kai Hendry wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:05:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > You can suggest it, but top-level directories are governed by the FHS, and
> > you'll have to come up with a pretty strong reason why the existing
> > available director
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 18:23 +1000, Kai Hendry wrote:
> /srv/www could be /srv/physics/www according to the FHS! Hardly a
> standard IMO.
>
> /web or /www gives prominence to Debian as a Web platform and HTTP_HOST
> is concrete.
Well, your suggestion is as less a standard as the directory structu
alacrity
http://whywaitlonger.com/cams2.php?SEVY
Jon
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:05:41AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> You can suggest it, but top-level directories are governed by the FHS, and
> you'll have to come up with a pretty strong reason why the existing
> available directories don't address the need.
So FHS suggests:
http://www.pathname.co
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:00:48PM +1000, Kai Hendry wrote:
> I think /usr/share/PACKAGE/www is rather long and clumsy.
> May I suggest a /web directory.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-webapps/2005/06/msg00029.html
You can suggest it, but top-level directories are governed by the FHS, and
you'l
I think /usr/share/PACKAGE/www is rather long and clumsy.
May I suggest a /web directory.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-webapps/2005/06/msg00029.html
The Web application can then store files based on /web/HTTP_HOST.
/usr/share/PACKAGE/www doesn't account for the possibility that more than
one w
19 matches
Mail list logo
