On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 01:06:31PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > No, /srv should exist, but otherwise be empty from the vendor's POV > (e.g. no package should own/place anything beneath /srv). We should > neither impose /srv/<service>, nor /srv/<service>/<domain>, nor > /srv/<domain>/<service> methods. I completely agree with this. The FHS policy for /srv is explicitly worded to have no policy for /srv, so we cannot use it as packagers. FHS says both that we must not impose any particular directory structure within /srv, and that we must use /srv as the "default location" for storing data used by services. The only way to satisfy that would be to do the equivalent of "DocumentRoot /srv" for every service, which would be simply stupid. joe -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
