[clc-devel] installing into /home (or not)
Hi, On my CRUX box at work, I'm mounting /home via NFS (and automount), which leads to conflicts with certain ports which try to install to /home. I've compiled a list of those ports, and they're mainly http or ftp servers: apache and apache-suexec cvstrac phpmyadmin thttpd-php vsftpd webfs apache-doc boa gopher While I don't mind changing the ports I want to install manually, I was wondering whether moving that to someplace else (e.g. /var) might be a good idea. Comments, opinions? Kind regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Bern, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I've got nothing against moving things, personally. I've seen a few systems use /var/www instead of /home/www/htdocs, etc... Doesn't bother me any. Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB7p2EGFVQ7mavvGgRAn05AJ945WrxVAW8Fus7xOaaM2u/T1VN1wCggKAb BgVTw/86EHpDtp/GDy2cggo= =vSx0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- Matt Housh <jaeger@morpheus.net> wrote:
I've got nothing against moving things, personally. I've seen a few systems use /var/www instead of /home/www/htdocs, etc... Doesn't bother me any.
I agree. If these ports were officially changed, I would not be upset. /var does seem more fitting. In fact, since the subject has come up, how about changing apache's datadir to /var/apache instead of /{home,var}/www? We have /etc/apache, /var/log/apache, why /home/www? I don't terribly care either way..just throwing it out there. ===== Jay Dolan Software Engineer, Systems Analyst Windmill Cycles, Inc. 508.999.4000 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 09:55:32AM -0800, Jay Dolan wrote:
--- Matt Housh <jaeger@morpheus.net> wrote:
I've got nothing against moving things, personally. I've seen a few systems use /var/www instead of /home/www/htdocs, etc... Doesn't bother me any.
I agree. If these ports were officially changed, I would not be upset. /var does seem more fitting. In fact, since the subject has come up, how about changing apache's datadir to /var/apache instead of /{home,var}/www? We have /etc/apache, /var/log/apache, why /home/www?
That's really simple. Webfs use /home/www as it's data directory, and because it's an opt port I'd copied this approach a long time ago ;-)
I don't terribly care either way..just throwing it out there.
Me too, but if we want to change the directory, we should do it CRUX-wide IMHO. Greetings Jürgen -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
--- Juergen Daubert <jue@jue.li> wrote:
That's really simple. Webfs use /home/www as it's data directory, and because it's an opt port I'd copied this approach a long time ago ;-)
[snip]
Me too, but if we want to change the directory, we should do it CRUX-wide IMHO.
Greetings J�rgen
Oh, I see :) Having never installed webfs, I did not know that. I guess Per's input is required here.. ===== Jay Dolan Software Engineer, Systems Analyst Windmill Cycles, Inc. 508.999.4000 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 11:00:15AM +0100, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Hi,
Hi again, [...]
While I don't mind changing the ports I want to install manually, I was wondering whether moving that to someplace else (e.g. /var) might be a good idea.
Comments, opinions?
After a second thought about this, I came to the conclusion, that such a change is a not a trivial one and should be considered major. Because: 1. a lot of ports are affected, in personal repos are some more we have to add to Johannes' list, additional work for the maintainers 2. more important, work for the users. They must move all the htdocs, web applications, change configurations etc. To be clear, I'm not against this in general, if we decide so, but I'm afraid the users will not be very happy at all. Kind regards Juergen -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
On 01/21/05 11:53 Juergen Daubert wrote:
After a second thought about this, I came to the conclusion, that such a change is a not a trivial one and should be considered major.
Because: 1. a lot of ports are affected, in personal repos are some more we have to add to Johannes' list, additional work for the maintainers 2. more important, work for the users. They must move all the htdocs, web applications, change configurations etc.
To be clear, I'm not against this in general, if we decide so, but I'm afraid the users will not be very happy at all.
Hi, if Per's ok with it, we could wait for this change in 2.1* and update the directory layout after the release while updating the ports. Does not really changes the impact on the users, but I think it would be somehow easier to accept (and detect) such a change as an 'upgrade' from a previous CRUX release. Regards, Simone * Following the 'ok, let's put it in 2.1' trend ;) -- Simone Rota WEB : http://www.varlock.com Bergamo, Italy MAIL: sip@varlock.com
Hi all, On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Simone Rota wrote:
On 01/21/05 11:53 Juergen Daubert wrote:
After a second thought about this, I came to the conclusion, that such a change is a not a trivial one and should be considered major.
Because: 1. a lot of ports are affected, in personal repos are some more we have to add to Johannes' list, additional work for the maintainers 2. more important, work for the users. They must move all the htdocs, web applications, change configurations etc.
To be clear, I'm not against this in general, if we decide so, but I'm afraid the users will not be very happy at all.
Hi,
if Per's ok with it, we could wait for this change in 2.1* and update the directory layout after the release while updating the ports.
Does not really changes the impact on the users, but I think it would be somehow easier to accept (and detect) such a change as an 'upgrade' from a previous CRUX release.
First of all, I agree that /home/www might not be the best choice for webfs/apache/etc to use. I used it in opt/webfs a long time ago, since I had perviously used /home/ftp as home for the ftp user in passwd (used by opt/btfpd). I wouldn't mind changing that to something else and add a policy to the guidelines saying that packages shouldn't touch /home at all. The question is then where we should point ftp/www deamons and "system users" home directories (like ftp) to by default. /var/<something>/<user> is not all the uncommon as far as I know. Any suggestions? Also, as was already suggested, this change would have to be wait until 2.1, to avoid making life hard for both users and ourselves. /Per
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:18:52PM +0100, Per Liden wrote: [...]
The question is then where we should point ftp/www deamons and "system users" home directories (like ftp) to by default. /var/<something>/<user> is not all the uncommon as far as I know.
Any suggestions?
I've talked to Johannes and Daniel about that, our common suggestion is to use /var/ftp resp. /var/www. Greetings Jürgen -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
participants (6)
-
Jay Dolan -
Johannes Winkelmann -
Juergen Daubert -
Matt Housh -
Per Liden -
Simone Rota