On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 08:02:39PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
> > Even there, it looks very much like other "very small" webservers,
> > such as boa, bozohttpd, cherokee, fnord, lighttpd, micro-httpd,
> > mini-httpd or thttpd. What does it do better than any of them? Or
> > worse? Or different?
>
> Why does a package need to clarify what's different about it than others
> like it? Debian is about having the possibility of choosing between many
> options for the same thing e.g. openssh, dropbear for sshd, 12 different
> httpd options, etc.
There is nothing wrong with having multiple packages in Debian that do
the same thing. However, you can wonder whether it is really helpful for
the user to have 10 or more light-weight http daemons to choose from. As
a distribution, we have a much broader view than the authors of those
http daemons. When we see something like this, maybe we should contact
the upstream authors and suggest that they work together, so that the
number of light-weight daemons to choose from decreases but the quality
of the remaining will be better.
Again, I'm not saying there should only be one light-weight http daemon.
But more than 10?
--
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature