Re: Issue 872 in lilypond: Changes split-page has broken images

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Op vrijdag 06-11-2009 om 19:12 uur [tijdzone +0000], schreef Graham
Percival:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 06:54:19PM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> > Op vrijdag 06-11-2009 om 17:44 uur [tijdzone +0000], schreef Graham
> > Percival:
> > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 08:24:11AM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:

> What's the reason to keep the /web/ part?  I mean, is it something
> to do with the way the server is set up?

Partly.  The root is the only space in /var that we have for
LilyPond, so there's other stuff there.

Having everything in one directory means that it's very easy
to administer, ie you can do rsync -avz --delete into web/.
That also means it is easy to switch to a new site using
a single .htaccess rule or symlink.

So it was these considerations and possibly laziness that
made us decide to use web/.  It would have been easy enough
/not/ to put stuff in web/, look at the 'old' website's
GNUmakefile, it just rsyncs stuff into web/.  Remove the
prefix and there you are.  So this is why I want to
give this a bit of extra thought.

Other things to consider are stability of external links.  
Have you seen the .htaccess file lately?  I fear that if we
move stuff to toplevel [and/or possibly back later] things will
become unmanageable.  Having the web/ prefix makes it easier to
do fixups and redirects, I think.

> In terms of the documentation / user experience, I don't think
> that having /web/ adds anything; it just makes the URLs four
> characters longer.

That's the con, it's somehow uncool to have the main web at
/web, instead of at .

Greetings,
Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
Avatar®: http://AvatarAcademy.nl    | http://lilypond.org