rpmRepo Web Apps Filesystem Directory

Dear Sirs,

Another disappointing question for me is the desigend Web
Apps directory.

The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends /srv/www but
only one of 
the big, SuSE, uses it.
Debian uses /var/www.
Mandriva uses both /var/www and /usr/share.
Red Hat used /var/www and now /usr/share.
CentOS uses /usr/share and RPMForge uses /var/www.

So my question is, what will be the future Web Apps
directory for rpmRepo ?

Be sure, I don't want to annoy anyone, I really want the
best for CentOS 
that we use every day in our production environment.

And this Filesystem Web Directory question is poisonning me
for a while, 
when I want to mix up packages, but also to make the good
choice for my 
own ones.

Best Regards,
Jean-Marc Liger - Sorbonne University Networks
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 02:13:13PM +0100, Jean-Marc LIGER
wrote:
> The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends /srv/www
but only one of the 
> big, SuSE, uses it.

Actually it doesn't. For big sites hosting various services
it
recommends a /srv/<domain>/<service> layout as
well. It also makes
rights management easier (give admins of domainX full access
to
/srv/domainX, admins of domainY full access to /srv/domainY
and so
on).

In fact it is deliberately left to the site admin how to
deal with it,
which is why no vendor or distribution should touch anything
inside
/srv other than offering the /srv folder itself.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Jean-Marc LIGER wrote:
> Dear Sirs,
> 
> Another disappointing question for me is the desigend
Web Apps directory.
> 
> The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends /srv/www
but only one of 
> the big, SuSE, uses it.
> Debian uses /var/www.
> Mandriva uses both /var/www and /usr/share.
> Red Hat used /var/www and now /usr/share.
> CentOS uses /usr/share and RPMForge uses /var/www.
> 
> So my question is, what will be the future Web Apps
directory for rpmRepo ?
> 
> Be sure, I don't want to annoy anyone, I really want
the best for CentOS 
> that we use every day in our production environment.
> 
> And this Filesystem Web Directory question is
poisonning me for a while, 
> when I want to mix up packages, but also to make the
good choice for my 
> own ones.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Jean-Marc Liger - Sorbonne University Networks

Well ... we use what is in RHEL.  Our whole goal is
everything the same, 
which means the same place.

When I create packages, I try to follow what RHEL does as an
example. 
So we use also use /var/www/ or /usr/share as well in our
extras or 
centosplus.




_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:35:48AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends
/srv/www but only one of
> > the big, SuSE, uses it.
> 
> On the Fedora/Red Hat front, this has been debated
several times within the
> packaging committee, the consensus right now (as I
understand it, mind you)
> is that the FHS's wording of /srv usage implies that
this is for
> *site-specific* stuff only, and the OS (in general)
shouldn't touch or
> assume anything about it's structure.  So, fedora
currently recommends
> packages follow-suit, and not put anything there, or
assume anything about
> it's content.

I think that pretty much covers it exactly. 

> That said, I wish FHS wording were a bit more flexible
to allow otherwise,
> but that's how things stand atm.

Well, the wording is deliberately left vague, as there are
use case
for at least two different layouts. None can subsume the
other in its
functionality, so it is really a local choice to make.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Jean-Marc LIGER wrote:

> Another disappointing question for me is the desigend
Web Apps directory.
> 
> The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends /srv/www
but only one of
> the big, SuSE, uses it.

On the Fedora/Red Hat front, this has been debated several
times within the
packaging committee, the consensus right now (as I
understand it, mind you)
is that the FHS's wording of /srv usage implies that this is
for
*site-specific* stuff only, and the OS (in general)
shouldn't touch or
assume anything about it's structure.  So, fedora currently
recommends
packages follow-suit, and not put anything there, or assume
anything about
it's content.

That said, I wish FHS wording were a bit more flexible to
allow otherwise,
but that's how things stand atm.

-- Rex

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Axel Thimm a écrit :
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 02:13:13PM +0100, Jean-Marc
LIGER wrote:
>   
>> The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends
/srv/www but only one of the 
>> big, SuSE, uses it.
>>     
>
> Actually it doesn't. For big sites hosting various
services it
> recommends a /srv/<domain>/<service> layout
as well. It also makes
> rights management easier (give admins of domainX full
access to
> /srv/domainX, admins of domainY full access to
/srv/domainY and so
> on).
>
> In fact it is deliberately left to the site admin how
to deal with it,
> which is why no vendor or distribution should touch
anything inside
> /srv other than offering the /srv folder itself.

SuSE uses /srv/www for its packaging Web Apps :
http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Serv
ice/Build_Service_Installation_Tutorial/CentOS

But I agree hosting domainX Web Apps should be in
/srv/domainX.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:34:25AM +0100, Jean-Marc LIGER
wrote:
> Axel Thimm a écrit :
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 02:13:13PM +0100, Jean-Marc
LIGER wrote:
>>   
>>> The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends
/srv/www but only one of the 
>>> big, SuSE, uses it.
>>>     
>>
>> Actually it doesn't. For big sites hosting various
services it
>> recommends a /srv/<domain>/<service>
layout as well. It also makes
>> rights management easier (give admins of domainX
full access to
>> /srv/domainX, admins of domainY full access to
/srv/domainY and so
>> on).
>>
>> In fact it is deliberately left to the site admin
how to deal with it,
>> which is why no vendor or distribution should touch
anything inside
>> /srv other than offering the /srv folder itself.
>
> SuSE uses /srv/www for its packaging Web Apps :
> http://en.opensuse.org/Build_Serv
ice/Build_Service_Installation_Tutorial/CentOS
>
> But I agree hosting domainX Web Apps should be in
/srv/domainX.

I don't disagree with suse doing that, but with the FHS
recommending
/srv/www. My wording was a bit unclear, sorry.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Axel Thimm a écrit :
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:35:48AM -0600, Rex Dieter
wrote:
>   
>>> The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard recommends
/srv/www but only one of
>>> the big, SuSE, uses it.
>>>       
>> On the Fedora/Red Hat front, this has been debated
several times within the
>> packaging committee, the consensus right now (as I
understand it, mind you)
>> is that the FHS's wording of /srv usage implies
that this is for
>> *site-specific* stuff only, and the OS (in general)
shouldn't touch or
>> assume anything about it's structure.  So, fedora
currently recommends
>> packages follow-suit, and not put anything there,
or assume anything about
>> it's content.
>>     
>
> I think that pretty much covers it exactly. 
>
>   
>> That said, I wish FHS wording were a bit more
flexible to allow otherwise,
>> but that's how things stand atm.
>>     
>
> Well, the wording is deliberately left vague, as there
are use case
> for at least two different layouts. None can subsume
the other in its
> functionality, so it is really a local choice to make.
>   

Ok, if I understand well, on the Fedora/Red Hat packaging
front, the 
consensus seems to be :
- site-specific web apps could be in /srv/ww (but depanding
on local choice)
- OS packaged web apps shoud be in /usr/share/%
instead of 
/var/www/%

So I made my question more simple :
- is /usr/share/% the default directory for centos
extras 
repository packaged % web apps ?
- would /usr/share/% be the default directory for
rpmRepo 
repository packaged % web apps ?

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel