Re: apache2: clearing the air [please read]
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 02:33:20PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Daniel Stone wrote:
> > This was a conscious decision made; there is currently no support in
> > Debian for virtual hosts, and it needs to be supported.
> Without any feedback from debian-policy I might add.
True. The discussion was made on debian-apache in the belief that we
weren't violating policy. If we were, please correct me and I'll either
propose the relevant amendment, or, if you need to be a DD (which is
most likely the case), then I'll seek someone to do it on my behalf.
> > If you scrolled down further, you'd see that apache2 doesn't provide any
> > of the webserver packages. (It doesn't conflict with apache, mind, as it
> > was designed to, and does, work side-by-side).
> Policy doesn't talks about `Web servers'. Are you trying to argue that
> apache2 is not a webserver, just because it does not provide a specific
> virtual package (which policy does not even mention I might add)?
Theoretically it's an inetd-type architecture with an httpd module
> > Because then you could go http://the.host.name/other.host.name/cgi-bin,
> > and see the CGI scripts for that particular host?
> No, because the admin isn't braindead and would put him elsewhere.
> Personally I put everything in /vhost/<hostname>/<mail,http,etc/> for
> example and have the default vhost (which isn't accessibly except
> from localhost) point to the standard debian locations (ie /var/www
> and /usr/lib/cgi-bin).
Why do you do that? What's the point? Why not just have everything
unified under /var/www? Makes a lot more sense to me. (BTW, I believe
Debian's are under /org/foo.bar.baz).
Daniel Stone <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"Oooh, I'm vibrating! That'd be my sister." -TongMaster