[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Where to locate repos (on Linux)

From: John Karp <johnkarp_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2007-11-03 00:09:34 CET

The FHS standard you link to mentions /srv, which seems an appropriate parent:

"/srv contains site-specific data which is served by this system.

This main purpose of specifying this is so that users may find the
location of the data files for particular service, and so that
services which require a single tree for readonly data, writable data
and scripts (such as cgi scripts) can be reasonably placed. Data that
is only of interest to a specific user should go in that users' home

Putting a repo anywhere under /usr just seems wrong to me; the point
of differentiating /usr and /var is so that /usr can be mounted
read-only. Also, svn doesn't like network-mounted drives, and its not
uncommon to have /usr be a readonly NFS mount.

"/usr is the second major section of the filesystem. /usr is
shareable, read-only data. That means that /usr should be shareable
between various FHS-compliant hosts and must not be written to. Any
information that is host-specific or varies with time is stored


On 02/11/2007, Micah Elliott <mde@micahelliott.com> wrote:
> I've been putting repos in various places, and I'd like to hear
> if some of those places are more popular or more standard than
> others. I can't figure out from FHS
> (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html) what is most
> appropriate, but I'd like to adhere to it if possible (not
> creating some non-standard area). Here are some I've used, none
> of which tickle me:
> /var/svn
> /var/<groupname>/svn
> /localdisk/svn
> /var/local/svn
> I tend to use /var since it's deemed "variable", or changing
> data. The book (svnbook.org) uses /usr/local/svn, which sounds
> reasonable, but slightly in violation of FHS, since a repo is
> really "variable" data. So maybe /var/local/svn is best?
> I'd like to standardize on something going forward. What is your
> preference?
> (As a related aside, I can't tell from FAQs/searches if it's
> still a no-no to put a repo on an NFS mount. Though "SVN Worst
> Practices" hints at it. From what I can tell, it used to be a
> problem with BDB or general Subversion locking(?). Am I okay now
> to do NFS with recent svn and FSFS? I assume people consider
> NFS/TCP superior to NFS/UDP for this.)
> --
> _ _ ___
> |V|icah |- lliott
> " " """
> mde_at_MicahElliott.com <>< http://MicahElliott.com
> PGP: 0x7C07CBF0 ICQ: 369060435 Linux/Ubuntu: 417195/12440
> HackerKey: v4sw6YUPCJhw5ln5pr7OPck2ma9u8Lw3m5l6Ui2e7t3b8LDMOen6a3XsMRr5
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> OntwD1YOMuQWa0DNwvOSkZs=
> =cERt

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Nov 3 01:08:20 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.