Dear Sirs,
Another disappointing question for me is the desigend Web Apps directory.
The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends /srv/www but only one of the big, SuSE, uses it. Debian uses /var/www. Mandriva uses both /var/www and /usr/share. Red Hat used /var/www and now /usr/share. CentOS uses /usr/share and RPMForge uses /var/www.
So my question is, what will be the future Web Apps directory for rpmRepo ?
Be sure, I don't want to annoy anyone, I really want the best for CentOS that we use every day in our production environment.
And this Filesystem Web Directory question is poisonning me for a while, when I want to mix up packages, but also to make the good choice for my own ones.
Best Regards, Jean-Marc Liger - Sorbonne University Networks
Jean-Marc LIGER wrote:
Dear Sirs,
Another disappointing question for me is the desigend Web Apps directory.
The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends /srv/www but only one of the big, SuSE, uses it. Debian uses /var/www. Mandriva uses both /var/www and /usr/share. Red Hat used /var/www and now /usr/share. CentOS uses /usr/share and RPMForge uses /var/www.
So my question is, what will be the future Web Apps directory for rpmRepo ?
Be sure, I don't want to annoy anyone, I really want the best for CentOS that we use every day in our production environment.
And this Filesystem Web Directory question is poisonning me for a while, when I want to mix up packages, but also to make the good choice for my own ones.
Best Regards, Jean-Marc Liger - Sorbonne University Networks
Well ... we use what is in RHEL. Our whole goal is everything the same, which means the same place.
When I create packages, I try to follow what RHEL does as an example. So we use also use /var/www/ or /usr/share as well in our extras or centosplus.
Jean-Marc LIGER wrote:
Another disappointing question for me is the desigend Web Apps directory.
The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends /srv/www but only one of the big, SuSE, uses it.
On the Fedora/Red Hat front, this has been debated several times within the packaging committee, the consensus right now (as I understand it, mind you) is that the FHS's wording of /srv usage implies that this is for *site-specific* stuff only, and the OS (in general) shouldn't touch or assume anything about it's structure. So, fedora currently recommends packages follow-suit, and not put anything there, or assume anything about it's content.
That said, I wish FHS wording were a bit more flexible to allow otherwise, but that's how things stand atm.
-- Rex
Johnny Hughes a écrit :
Jean-Marc LIGER wrote:
Dear Sirs,
Another disappointing question for me is the desigend Web Apps directory.
The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends /srv/www but only one of the big, SuSE, uses it. Debian uses /var/www. Mandriva uses both /var/www and /usr/share. Red Hat used /var/www and now /usr/share. CentOS uses /usr/share and RPMForge uses /var/www.
So my question is, what will be the future Web Apps directory for rpmRepo ?
Be sure, I don't want to annoy anyone, I really want the best for CentOS that we use every day in our production environment.
And this Filesystem Web Directory question is poisonning me for a while, when I want to mix up packages, but also to make the good choice for my own ones.
Best Regards, Jean-Marc Liger - Sorbonne University Networks
Well ... we use what is in RHEL. Our whole goal is everything the same, which means the same place.
When I create packages, I try to follow what RHEL does as an example. So we use also use /var/www/ or /usr/share as well in our extras or centosplus.
Well ... the first move I found from /var/www to /usr/share was in a CentOS package :)
* Sat Oct 29 2005 Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org 3.0.6-1.centos4 - Initial build for CentOS4 - Changed the html location to be consistent w/CentOS web apps (/usr/share)
Fedora also follows this way : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
I'm not so happy with that because it gets rid of precision. First we can find several type files in /usr/share and secondly the web directory can change from /usr/share/%{name}/web-files to more complicated /usr/share/%{name}/[htdocs/html/wwwroot/www/...]/web-files, depending of the source bundle.
But life is not every time a happyness, so I'm looking for a unique choice to follow if possible (for CentOS packaging only).
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 02:13:13PM +0100, Jean-Marc LIGER wrote:
The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends /srv/www but only one of the big, SuSE, uses it.
Actually it doesn't. For big sites hosting various services it recommends a /srv/<domain>/<service> layout as well. It also makes rights management easier (give admins of domainX full access to /srv/domainX, admins of domainY full access to /srv/domainY and so on).
In fact it is deliberately left to the site admin how to deal with it, which is why no vendor or distribution should touch anything inside /srv other than offering the /srv folder itself.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:35:48AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends /srv/www but only one of the big, SuSE, uses it.
On the Fedora/Red Hat front, this has been debated several times within the packaging committee, the consensus right now (as I understand it, mind you) is that the FHS's wording of /srv usage implies that this is for *site-specific* stuff only, and the OS (in general) shouldn't touch or assume anything about it's structure. So, fedora currently recommends packages follow-suit, and not put anything there, or assume anything about it's content.
I think that pretty much covers it exactly. :)
That said, I wish FHS wording were a bit more flexible to allow otherwise, but that's how things stand atm.
Well, the wording is deliberately left vague, as there are use case for at least two different layouts. None can subsume the other in its functionality, so it is really a local choice to make.
Axel Thimm a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 02:13:13PM +0100, Jean-Marc LIGER wrote:
The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends /srv/www but only one of the big, SuSE, uses it.
Actually it doesn't. For big sites hosting various services it recommends a /srv/<domain>/<service> layout as well. It also makes rights management easier (give admins of domainX full access to /srv/domainX, admins of domainY full access to /srv/domainY and so on).
In fact it is deliberately left to the site admin how to deal with it, which is why no vendor or distribution should touch anything inside /srv other than offering the /srv folder itself.
SuSE uses /srv/www for its packaging Web Apps : http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service/Build_Service_Installation_Tutorial/Cen...
But I agree hosting domainX Web Apps should be in /srv/domainX.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:34:25AM +0100, Jean-Marc LIGER wrote:
Axel Thimm a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 02:13:13PM +0100, Jean-Marc LIGER wrote:
The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends /srv/www but only one of the big, SuSE, uses it.
Actually it doesn't. For big sites hosting various services it recommends a /srv/<domain>/<service> layout as well. It also makes rights management easier (give admins of domainX full access to /srv/domainX, admins of domainY full access to /srv/domainY and so on).
In fact it is deliberately left to the site admin how to deal with it, which is why no vendor or distribution should touch anything inside /srv other than offering the /srv folder itself.
SuSE uses /srv/www for its packaging Web Apps : http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Service/Build_Service_Installation_Tutorial/Cen...
But I agree hosting domainX Web Apps should be in /srv/domainX.
I don't disagree with suse doing that, but with the FHS recommending /srv/www. My wording was a bit unclear, sorry.
Axel Thimm a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:35:48AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends /srv/www but only one of the big, SuSE, uses it.
On the Fedora/Red Hat front, this has been debated several times within the packaging committee, the consensus right now (as I understand it, mind you) is that the FHS's wording of /srv usage implies that this is for *site-specific* stuff only, and the OS (in general) shouldn't touch or assume anything about it's structure. So, fedora currently recommends packages follow-suit, and not put anything there, or assume anything about it's content.
I think that pretty much covers it exactly. :)
That said, I wish FHS wording were a bit more flexible to allow otherwise, but that's how things stand atm.
Well, the wording is deliberately left vague, as there are use case for at least two different layouts. None can subsume the other in its functionality, so it is really a local choice to make.
Ok, if I understand well, on the Fedora/Red Hat packaging front, the consensus seems to be : - site-specific web apps could be in /srv/ww (but depanding on local choice) - OS packaged web apps shoud be in /usr/share/%{name} instead of /var/www/%{name}
So I made my question more simple : - is /usr/share/%{name} the default directory for centos extras repository packaged %{name} web apps ? - would /usr/share/%{name} be the default directory for rpmRepo repository packaged %{name} web apps ?
-
Axel Thimm -
Jean-Marc LIGER -
Johnny Hughes -
Rex Dieter