Le Ven 28 septembre 2007 07:47, Alexander Boström a écrit : > I've already given my opinion about /srv, but I'll repeat it: If you > necessarily need to impose a structure on it, put that structure only > in /srv/lib. Make it /srv/lib/<packagename>. And this is broken by design. You're mirroring /var organisation when people have repeatedly told you this organisation was not adapted to their needs. Swapping /var and /srv does not make it magically sane. Also you contradict yourself by insisting both on packagename namespacing and taking a packagename-agnostic layout like /var/www as example. What's the point of lib in srv ? What's the point of forcing packagename in the namespace ? Admins do not move their http or ftp content just because they've switched http or ftp server implementation. The whole point of /srv is admins feel there is data that should be saved even if system libs are lost. The corollary is the coupling between this data and binary organisation is loose at best, and moving /srv to a system with a different set of binaries, different package repartition, is perfectly valid. Sure some stuff is package (and often package-version) specific, like database files. But a lot of it is completely package-agnostic. You should not force a stonger coupling than is technically required just because it makes packager life easier. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
