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

Re: RFS: phpmyid

OoO  En ce début  d'après-midi ensoleillé  du jeudi  28 août  2008, vers
15:04, Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de> disait :

>> In debian/control, your dependencies  are too strict.

> I relaxed the dependencies. However, how can I know that my package
> actually works with all HTTP daemons? I cannot test them all.

It is not  really your matter. You provide a  configuration file for the
one or  several HTTP  daemon and  let the user  handle other  cases. The
point here is to not force the user install Apache while he wants to use
another daemon to run this package.

>> I think that you should not ship htaccess file (or as documentation).
>> It is usually better to put all configuration in Apache configuration
>> file.  For example,  by default, rewrite rules are  not authorized in
>> htaccess. You  can put the  content of htaccess in  your apache2.conf
>> file for example.

> What do you mean by "rewrite rules are not authorized"? Is it perhaps
> better to not deviate from upstream in this case (htaccess comes from
> upstream)? I could try to convince upstream to change this with the next
> version.

The default configuration of Apache  does not allow to put rewrite rules
in .htaccess files. In post-lenny, nothing will be authorized by default
in  .htaccess. Therefore,  a user  modifying  .htaccess will  get a  non
working configuration unless it also modifies an AllowOverride clause.

Upstream ships .htaccess because it  allows user to just unpack the soft
in some directory and make  it work without modifying anything else (but
as pointed above, this won't work on a default Debian system). Since you
are packaging the  software for Debian, you don't  need to use .htaccess
because you can  alter Apache configuration (usually by  dropping a file
in /etc/apache2/conf.d).

There is  no mandatory document  about this. You  can look at  the draft
policy here:
No fortunes found

Attachment: pgpViI6R11ClB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: