tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <>
Subject Re: Fedora
Date Mon, 17 May 2004 19:48:43 GMT
Shapira, Yoav wrote:

>>That would be the ideal solution, but I doubt it. Henri ?
> Does Henri (or do you, Henri, since you're reading this ;)) work
> for/with to generate RPMs?
>>I do preffer insisting on our layout and having a  warning on the site
> and
>>startup if this is modified. But if Henri and other people preffer
>>FHS - I'm fine too, as long as we do define one FHS variant and attempt
> to
>>prevent the fragmentation.
> I'm with you: one layout.

> With tomcat maturing (it's already mature), keeping a stable way to
> deploy, configure, and setup things is a significant consideration.  We
> have a huge user base that gets troubled and annoyed (justifiably in
> some cases) when we introduce things like the conf/[engine name]/[host
> name] structure without warning or sufficient documentation.  I'm not
> saying we were bad, I'm just giving an example.

> So if we have to have FHS, which would be unfortunate, let's at least
> make sure it's one consistent variant and update our docs accordingly.


The only reason to support FHS would be the fact that many Redhat 
distros will refuse to include anything that is not FHS ( that seems the 
reason qmail is not available in debian or redhat - their licence 
requires certain layout and operating mode ).

I would preffer redhat/fedora/etc users to get tomcat from the apache 
RPM, but some may like the convenience of having it on the install CDs.
And it may be an easier battle to require distros to use our own 
defined-FHS layout ( insted of N variants ) then convince them to use 
our non-FHS layout ( even if the later will be easier to support and 
more stable ). Even the first is hard, since it removes their ability to 
lock-in and control.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message