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
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
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