On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:47:24 +0300 Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2009/10/2 Sergej Pupykin <pupykin.s@xxxxxxxxx>: > > Hi, > > > > I want to discuss using /srv directory in packages > > > > (For reference: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16410) > > > > Of course I can easy sed and rebuild all my web packages, but I > > want to know reason why we disable /srv in packages? > > IMO web apps should not even be packed as packages. > It's easy to download sources from an official site and install > in whatever user's webserver directory is. > Yes, packaging a webapp is nice for automatic upgrading with pacman, > but users can have multiple web servers with multiple vhosts in /srv, > so often installing something there won't make it working anyway, > and user will copy/move/symlink the app to whatever directory is > right for user's webserver config scheme, which is against the idea > that package files (except configs) should not be touched by user, > but only by package manager. > > > Would it be good if I replace /srv/http with /var/www/<package> or > > something like this? > > No, /var is not good either. > I can think about something like /usr/share/src/<webapp>, > but anyway that does not make much sense, > comparing to just installing the sources manually. :-/ > well it would at least give you the advantage of easier seeing if there are updates, updating, getting a list of installed webapps etc. I'm fine with packaged webapps where the webapps are installed in a dir which users are supposed to symlink to. so that it's still up to the user, but they get the advantages listed above. anything more then that gets icky: webapps come with config files, default sql data, upon upgrade you usually need to do several steps such as running a bunch of sql queries etc. stuff that should probably not be done automatically. Dieter
