Le Ven 28 septembre 2007 14:55, Alexander Boström a écrit :
fre 2007-09-28 klockan 11:30 +0200 skrev Nicolas Mailhot:
> 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.
No, they have not. The fact that /var is something you need to go
through directory by directory to see what you need to backup and what
you can lose is not an argument against /srv/lib. Is that what you
mean?
The fact that some stuff is nonsensically under /lib in var is no
reason to inflict /lib on /srv
> Also you contradict yourself by insisting both on packagename
> namespacing and taking a packagename-agnostic layout like /var/www
> as
> example.
No, I was suggesting bringing that dir into the fold with the others
in /srv/lib if you move it to somewhere in /srv. Whether /srv/lib/www
should be a shared dir for web-related packages or there should be one
dir per package is a different question which I haven't really
intended to comment on or even considered.
www is not the only directory with such a question and if you've not
considered the problem please refrain from advocating generic
packagename namespacing rules
> What's the point of forcing packagename in the namespace ?
Symmetry. Unless there's a good argument against, symmetry is useful.
Symmetry is what led to the wonderful LSB package naming no one uses.
Also the package namespace is distro-specific, forcing it on /srv will
result in distro-specific file layout. The nice thing about the FHS is
it strives to be distro-agnostic.
It's not about forcing, it's about finding something that can
be
agreed upon so that you can add it to the FHS.
You have two ways to get new stuff in LSB/FHS.
Define carefully though stuff that works and everyone is happy to use,
and define æsthetically pleasing stuff that has no relevance to
reality but feels good in a spec.
The first way is more work.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot