Re: /var/www is depracated, which directory to use?
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 04:15:42PM +0800, Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> On Sonntag, 27. September 2009, sean finney wrote:
> > > I personally do not believe that serving anything from a package via the
> > > web by default is a good goal. Certainly for my systems, any system
> > > that's running a web server has a virtual host configuration and anything
> > > that packages try to do to control what my web server serves out is
> > > broken and undesireable.
> > i'd have to disagree there. i think anything that might serve up content
> > while unconfigured is a horrible idea
>
> I think having munin working out-of-the-box is a very neat feature.
One minor point regarding "out of the box":
Currently the package munin Suggests 'httpd'. Not specifically apache.
http://packages.debian.org/sid/munin
now shows:
httpd
virtual package provided by aolserver4-core-4.5.1,
aolserver4-daemon,apache2-mpm-event, apache2-mpm-itk,
apache2-mpm-prefork, apache2-mpm-worker, boa, bozohttpd, caudium,
cherokee, dhttpd, ebhttpd, fnord, lighttpd, mathopd, micro-httpd,
mini-httpd, monkey, nginx, ocsigen, roxen4, thttpd, tntnet, webfs,
yaws
I believe most (or at least many) of those only support a single web
root. If you want to serve munin's static content from /usr/share/munin
and foo's static content from /usr/share/foo , you'll probably just
symlink both from /var/www and hope that this httpd supports (doesn't
explicitly disable) symlinks and doesn't chroot.
I figure most of us don't really care about support for yet another
httpd that nobody really uses. However, "getting it to work out of the
box" now seems to basically mean "adding apache2 connfiguration snippet
for it". Are other httpds supported?
(And yes, I read the webapps policy draft).
--
Tzafrir Cohen | tzafrir@jabber.org | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's
tzafrir@cohens.org.il | | best
ICQ# 16849754 | | friend
Reply to: