On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 08:41:43PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > 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. Well, see below. > 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. I agree, which is why you can't this all happen under /srv. rpm can either not have /srv at all, or enforce only one of three popular models pissing off two thirds of the users. But we want all users to continue to use Fedora/RHEL, so we let /srv to the users' mercy only, and keep our packages away from it. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp4PP4Gikmfm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
