[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: massfiling

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Thomas Viehmann wrote:

> Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> >>The reason the package only supports apache-ssl and apache is that it
> >>needs to know (and pass to wwwconfig-common) where to put it's apache
> >>config section, i.e. where to introduce the /phpgroupware-Location. Is
> >>there a solution suggested for that?
> >
> > Personally i didn't store each single detail for each single package, but
> > apache-perl works exactly as apache and apache-ssl. apache-perl is only
> > apache + mod_perl compiled in, instead of a DSO module. it has its own
> > config files in /etc/apache-perl if this is what you are asking for.
> What I was asking for was: Which server should a package use to have
> phpgroupware's pages served and how do I find out?
> Presently, phpgroupware asks via debconf, thus the user will only have
> the choices I put there (i.e. not apache-perl at present).

This is something that you or the user have to decide. apache cannot take
this decision for you. You are responsable to check which servers are
installed and ask the user.

> As many packages provide some kind of service via a web interface, maybe
> the the question (presented to the user in a fashion similar to the
> phpmyadmin question) should be asked by apache-common or wwwconfig-common.

apache in general has nothing to do with application running on top of it
and it should not know about them. If for eg. your application is not
compatible with apache-ssl, apache-common might not be aware of that.

> Note that you're cited with a problem that's strikingly similar
> (location of htdocs) in TODO.Debian.

This is already fixed in out cvs.

> I'm kind of surprised about the appearant disinterest of the Debian
> Apache team in (a tool similar to the apache configuration facilities
> of) wwwconfig-common that would make it easy to avoid most of the bugs
> at issue.

This is untrue. If the team was not interested in having something
structured, why did we spend our time investigating all these packages?

> Maybe some common infrastructure would be nice?

I don't disagree at all.

> A typical web-based foo will require "web server that does php", thus
> any time someone introduces another apache* (that includes apache2)
> variant or some other webserver, another couple of dozen bugs will be filed?

If you maintain an application that depends on a httpd, it is in your
interested to keep track of what is happening in the httpd world.
As maintainer you are resposable for it.


<user> fajita: step one
<fajita> Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log.
<user> fajita: step two
<fajita> When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout.

Reply to: