On Thursday 28 February 2008, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote: > Frans Pop wrote: > > On Wednesday 27 February 2008, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote: > >> The only other requirement is a small, CGI capable, http server like > >> thttpd, which needs to be packaged as an udeb, anyway. > > > > Why does it need to be packaged *anyway*? What other use case is there > > for thttpd inside the installer other than the web interface? > > Uhm.. how would you provide the HTTP server to the installer, then ? by > means of the the same udeb which is supposed to provides the CGI > scripts companion to the frontend ? > Given a regular deb providing thhtpd already exists, i guess it > shouldn't be too complicated building the udeb... No, I mean why "anyway". By adding that you implied that there was already some other reason to package a thhtpd udeb, but I now understand that was not the case. An alternative option could be to use the httpd server included in busybox. Disadvantage would be that that increases the size of all images, unless we'd have a separate busybox, but that would also mean separate images. OTOH, web frontend only really works if it is included in the initrd anyway and all network config can be done completely automatically, so that probably also means separate images and then using the busybox option is probably the best one from a size PoV. See, loads of options and considerations :-)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.