Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jon Portnoy <avenj@g.o>
To: Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Introducing /srv into Gentoo Linux
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 02:08:58
Message-Id: 20040204020852.GA12658@cerberus.oppresses.us
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Introducing /srv into Gentoo Linux by Donnie Berkholz
1 On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 09:05:42PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
2 > On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 20:37, Jon Portnoy wrote:
3 > > On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 01:20:45AM +0000, Stuart Herbert wrote:
4 > > Content-Description: signed data
5 > > > On Wednesday 04 February 2004 1:12 am, Jon Portnoy wrote:
6 > > > > I think the FHS needs to stop wrecking a perfectly usable preexisting
7 > > > > standard filesystem layout by introducing useless directories like
8 > > > > /media (should be under /mnt) and /srv (should be under /var).
9 > > >
10 > > > I'm with you on /media. But I think /srv has merit.
11 > >
12 > > What does /srv give us that /var doesn't?
13 >
14 > It's worth reading the reasoning for its existence:
15 >
16 > http://bugs.freestandards.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16
17
18 I still don't agree that it's necessary when we already have /var. I
19 think /var should be more widely used and accepted with a broader
20 definition than a new root-level directory.
21
22 --
23 Jon Portnoy
24 avenj/irc.freenode.net
25
26 --
27 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list