I would disagree with that. FHS 2.3 does not clearly specify the intended use case for /srv.

Also, I would note that I have very little confidence in the FHS as a process. We have had a bug open on addressing /libexec for several years now.

Nevertheless, if you have a suggested rewording for the appropriate use of /srv in Fedora, please propose it.

Replying to [comment:1 spot]:

I would disagree with that. FHS 2.3 does not clearly specify the intended use case for /srv.

Also, I would note that I have very little confidence in the FHS as a process. We have had a bug open on addressing /libexec for several years now.

There appears to be progress, or at least intentions towards having progress -- see the link in the earlier message.

Nevertheless, if you have a suggested rewording for the appropriate use of /srv in Fedora, please propose it.

I suggest simply striking the first sentence of the paragraph, keeping the rest. (And the rest of the section.)

Digging way back into my memory of when this was discussed, I believe the question that we were attempting to answer (along with /srv in general which is adequately covered by the second sentence) was whether services should come preconfigured to utilize /srv. As in, no package data is placed in /srv but a package knows to look in /srv/my_service_data for site specific data. The answer to this was no because the FHS is explicit about the unspecified nature of anything below this directory. A web server configured to read /srv/my_service_data might inadvertantly make public data that the system administrator considered private to an entirely different service, for instance.

So how about this as wording::

"""
[FHS quote]

The FHS is explicitly handing control of the directory structure under /srv to the system administrator rather than the distribution. Therefore, no Fedora packages can have any files or directories under /srv or come preconfigured to use specific files or directories under /srv.

It is important to note that a Fedora package, once installed and configured by a user, can use /srv as a location for data. The package simply must not do this out of the box.
"""

Replying to [comment:3 toshio]:

So how about this as wording::

Sounds good to me. Thanks.

Improved /srv wording approved (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0)

Guidelines updated.

Announcement text:

"""
The guideline that prohibits Fedora packages from using /srv has been updated to better represent what the FHS has to say about /srv and to clarify the expectations for Fedora packages which may be configured to use /srv.
"""