Le lundi 23 octobre 2006 à 13:28 -0400, Matthew Miller a écrit :
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 07:15:48PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
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.
It doesn't say you must not have any particular defaults in srv -- just that applications must not expect it to be in any particular way.
Replace applications there by third-party applications
No, I don't think so, actually.
Obviously Fedora-packaged apps can expect whatever Fedora layout Fedora provides.
Why is that obvious?
Because it's unreasonable to forbid an entity to rely on its own actions? The FHS wrote its specification in the context of an app installed on a foreign system, not in the context of a distro which controls the whole system
The FHS basically writes app authors must write apps so app users can configure whatever /srv/ layout they want. It says no entity can expect another entity to provide any particular /srv/ layout.
But in the context of a distribution : — we are providing a /srv/ layout for ourselves (acting in-stead of users, which is what distributions are supposed to do) — users are still free to reconfigure apps with whatever policy they prefer if they don't like the Fedora one.
I don't see how the document could be read otherwise. The alternative would be to forbid *any* pre-configuration for *any* service the FHS puts in /srv/, which is plain ridiculous (should apps ignore conf files settings and embark in automagical /srv/ exploration heuristics too? that's another absolutist reading)
And BTW pre-configuring is *safe*. *No* app author can complain Fedora is providing a particular /srv layout — the FHS forbids them to expect a particular layout. That includes an empty /srv.