On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 11:53:37PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote: > I think debian isn't that good for webservers at the moments. Depends upon who you talk to. IMHO, Debian makes a great webserver at the moment. ;-) > One (IMO very good) example is the php include_path. some packages ask > the user to add /path/to/project_include/ into the php.ini. IMHO, this is a very Bad Thing(TM). The most elegant solution I've seen is to add the php_include_path in your Apache configuration via an Include statement referrencing the software's /etc/<package>/apache.conf file. Include the /etc/<package>/ directory for customized *.php or *.inc files as well as the installed share directory /usr/share/<package>. This is the one feature of PHP that has reduced my configuration headaches to NIL. > The best solution would IMO be a global includepath, standard in the > include_path at php.ini, like /usr/lib/php/, and packages are only > allowed to make subdirs like /usr/lib/php/package_name. Then there > wouldn't be this problem any longer with adding to php.ini and so on. The problem with this approach is that you expose the subdirectories to ALL of the PHP packages, then. I don't really want my Horde libraries accessible from phpGroupWare, for example. > Also I would say that projects are only allowed to make subdirs in > /usr/lib/cgi-bin, not to place scripts direct there, like > wdg-html-validator does (/usr/lib/cgi-bin/validate.cgi). This also has the same exposure problem. Using Apache's permissions and URL rewriting mechanisms is a much cleaner solution to exposing CGI and mod_<language> applications. -- Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net> | a.k.a. ^chewie http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr
Attachment:
pgpoBZNyDkbC3.pgp
Description: PGP signature