On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 17:36 +0000, Chris G wrote: > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 12:08:28PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Chris G wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:12:14AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > > > > > /srv > > > > > > > .... and how does that help? It just adds yet *another* possibility! > > > > > > It makes it easy to keep separate and to back it up I suppose but > > > doesn't address the ease of editing or permissions issues. > > > > > > Is it what /srv is intended for? > > > > yup. > > > > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM > > > Yes, I just found my way there too and /srv does seem to be the 'most > correct' place for web pages and other related things. It does seem > that it's far from a well defined standard yet though which would > account for the many different directories used by different > distributions. > For example, there was a long thread recently in fedora-devel-list on whether distributions could impose any structure at all on the contents of /srv. I don't recall if any firm conclusions were reached, but for now, I don't think you'll see RPMs (from Fedora, anyway) making any use of it. My take would be that if I'm doing a fresh install on an existing machine, I should be able to blow away the contents of /var without worrying that I'm destroying user data. So things like /var/www, /var/cvs, /var/spool/mail, /var/spool/mqueue, /var/lib/<databases>, etc., should really be in /srv. But there are definitely different views on this. > Thanks for the pointer. > -- Matthew Saltzman Clemson University Math Sciences mjs AT clemson DOT edu http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
