Le mercredi 27 juin 2007 à 20:19 +0200, Axel Thimm a écrit : > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 08:08:50PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > also layouts that use domains as roots are pretty much ruled out in an > > rpm context, so that's not as if we have a choice to make > > Yes, but that means more that the rpm setup within /srv is ruled out, > the way you write it may be read as "rpm doesn't support domain > hierarchies, so Fedora setups should not use them" ;) That is exactly what I meant. Using the filesystem namespace to express domain separations is broken by design in any autodeploy/autoupdate context. That people can get by in a manual deployment context does not make it any less broken (there's a lot of stuff which is cheap with a human operator and insane with an automaton) The *only* sane policy in an automated context is domain-agnostic file locations + domain policy in conf files (which allows transparent domain aliasing BTW). I've spent time enough as a webapp ISV engineer trying to workaround the tomcat≥3 stupid policy of forcing a domain file layout on everyone to have a clear opinion on the subject. You have file resources, and you have local network policies (which may even be dynamic with dhcp avahi & friends). They never map 1:1. Forcing file layout to reflect domain layout is an exercise in futility. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
