Bug#627213: New virtual package(s) for different kinds of httpd (fastcgi etc)

[Jérémy Lal <jerry@edagames.com>]

On 30/05/2011 15:57, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 08:18:13PM +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
>> Package: debian-policy
>> Version: 3.9.2.0
>> Severity: wishlist
>>
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 07:55:33PM +0200, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>>> On 18/05/2011 19:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>>> Anton Martchukov <anton@martchukov.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to install MoinMoin wiki (python-moinmoin) using
>>>>> FastCGI on nginx web server (nginx-full), but python-moinmoin
>>>>> brings Apache web server into the system due to its
>>>>> dependencies:
>>>>
>>>>> python-moinmoin depends on libapache2-mod-wsgi | httpd-cgi
>>>>
>>>>> nginx-full provides httpd
>>>>
>>>>> I would submit a bug report on any of those packages, but 
>>>>> it does not appear clear to me:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. Virtual package httpd-cgi is this only plain CGI or also
>>>>> can be FactCGI too? In case with nginx, it does not support
>>>>> plain old CGI, but does support FastCGI (plus SCGI and WSGI).
>>>>
>>>>> 2. libapache2-mod-wsgi is not the only WSGI web server
>>>>> available. 
>>>>
>>>>> 3. moinmoin is not limited to WCGI and CGI and also can
>>>>> be run with built-in web server, FastCGI, SCGI and AJP.
>>>>
>>>>> The bottom line is that we are probably missing a bunch of
>>>>> virtual packages like:
>>>>
>>>>> httpd-fastcgi
>>>>> httpd-wsgi
>>>>> httpd-scgi
>>>>> httpd-ajp
>>>
>>> +1
>>> especially for the distinction between httpd-fcgi and httpd-cgi.
>>> Note that "fcgi" name is more used than "fastcgi" in packages names.
>>>
>>>> httpd-wsgi has already been requested.  See #588497.  So far, no one seems
>>>> to have run into a practical requirement for the others, although if you
>>>> have some cases where we'd use them (as opposed to just a theoretical
>>>> need), please do file a debian-policy bug about that.
>>>
>>> I have the feeling it is a good idea to enforce web servers to declare their
>>> abilities like that. Today many webapps can run through fcgi, whether they are
>>> in php, ruby, c... but they can't state that fact in their control fields.
>>> Instead, i've seen some of them depend on apache2, whereas they can run with
>>> any other httpd-fcgi (example: roundcube-core)
>>> Trouble is i'm not good at argumenting this in a bug report.
>>
>> I think you've made yourself clear. Let's just open the bug with this
>> mail to track what's already been said.
> 
> So what it is the list of packages that would provide fastcgi ?

those servers support fcgi, please add more if any :
apache2
lighttpd
nginx
cherokee

Note that lighttpd, nginx, cherokee can talk to fastcgi processes
(through unix or net sockets), while apache2 needs libapache2-mod-fcgid to do that.

Some clarifications :
* setting up the fastcgi process itself is specific for each case,
  so it's the responsibility of the "client" package to declare what it depends on
  (php5-cgi, libfcgi-ruby, ...).
* most, if not all, servers provide a way to spawn the fastcgi process within the
  server, binding them to sockets and managing permissions, but httpd-fcgi should not mean that.
  It should only mean the web server can talk to an existing fastcgi process.
  The way to spawn it is specific to the "client" package (spawn-fcgi being a common tool
  to achieve that task, but is only a possibility among others)


* debian policy 11.5.5 would need an update then ?

--
Jérémy.