[arch-dev-public] cleaned-up apache package
Hi, I commited a new apache to [testing]. I have removed the custom configs and index.html. Instead I just provide the upstream defaults. /home/httpd was removed, too. Instead error pages and images for dirlistings etc. are installed to /usr/share/httpd which seem more sane to me. The were many discussions about the default document root. Of course /srv/www would be better than /home/httpd, but in the end I think it's the Arch way not to force user to either one of those. So let the user decide where to put their websites. As a result architecture-independent web packages should install to /usr/share. Users have to symlink or set aliases to their documentroot; whereever it is. For now I kept the use of the user and group "nobody" for the webserver. But I am not sure if that is the best way. Even apache's documentation advices us to create dedicated users and groups. What do you think about introducing a http user for this? (We allready have mail and ftp users for this) What do you think about this? If you think this will break anything, please let me know, too. I don't really use apache that much. Pierre -- http://www.archlinux.de
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 02:38:41PM +0200, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
I commited a new apache to [testing]. I have removed the custom configs and index.html. Instead I just provide the upstream defaults. /home/httpd was removed, too. Instead error pages and images for dirlistings etc. are installed to /usr/share/httpd which seem more sane to me.
The were many discussions about the default document root. Of course /srv/www would be better than /home/httpd, but in the end I think it's the Arch way not to force user to either one of those. So let the user decide where to put their websites.
As a result architecture-independent web packages should install to /usr/share. Users have to symlink or set aliases to their documentroot; whereever it is.
For now I kept the use of the user and group "nobody" for the webserver. But I am not sure if that is the best way. Even apache's documentation advices us to create dedicated users and groups. What do you think about introducing a http user for this? (We allready have mail and ftp users for this)
What do you think about this? If you think this will break anything, please let me know, too. I don't really use apache that much.
Does the new package solve any of these? http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9027 http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9378 http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/1857 http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/7952 http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8382 http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6028 Greg
Am Freitag, 20. Juni 2008 14:47:03 schrieb Grigorios Bouzakis:
Does the new package solve any of these?
yes -- http://www.archlinux.de
On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 14:38 +0200, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
I commited a new apache to [testing]. I have removed the custom configs and index.html. Instead I just provide the upstream defaults. /home/httpd was removed, too. Instead error pages and images for dirlistings etc. are installed to /usr/share/httpd which seem more sane to me.
What were our modifications to the custom configs? Anything done for the user that is now manual should be a note in post_install (or a link to the wiki with required changes).
The were many discussions about the default document root. Of course /srv/www would be better than /home/httpd, but in the end I think it's the Arch way not to force user to either one of those. So let the user decide where to put their websites.
+1 on the change from /home, but I don't think /usr/share is the right place. /usr should be able to be mounted read-only except when software is changed. That's something you can't do if you keep websites there. /var/www or /srv/www are much better choices.
As a result architecture-independent web packages should install to /usr/share. Users have to symlink or set aliases to their documentroot; whereever it is.
For now I kept the use of the user and group "nobody" for the webserver. But I am not sure if that is the best way. Even apache's documentation advices us to create dedicated users and groups. What do you think about introducing a http user for this? (We allready have mail and ftp users for this)
+1 with a big note in post_install that this change is coming. I'd like to see all these changes in one Apache to not have two long downtimes when upgrading.
Am Freitag, 20. Juni 2008 14:51:53 schrieb Dale Blount:
What were our modifications to the custom configs? Anything done for the user that is now manual should be a note in post_install (or a link to the wiki with required changes).
There were things like pre-configured php-support, an ssl-howto and an index.html with the /old) arch logo. Of course there will be an install message before moving to extra. For everything else there is excellent documentation at apache.org.
+1 on the change from /home, but I don't think /usr/share is the right place. /usr should be able to be mounted read-only except when software is changed. That's something you can't do if you keep websites there. /var/www or /srv/www are much better choices.
You got me wrong. :-) /usr/share is used only for the datadir. According to configure this is for "read-only architecture-independent data". And those things should stay in /usr/share. There is no pre-configured documentroot where you have to put your webpages. That's up to the user who has to adjust httpd.conf to his needs. Nobody should put his web content under /usr/share. :-) But there will be an install message about this.
+1 with a big note in post_install that this change is coming. I'd like to see all these changes in one Apache to not have two long downtimes when upgrading.
There "should" be no downtime for upgraders because I have only change the default config. (But maybe I have missed something) -- http://www.archlinux.de
+1 on the change from /home, but I don't think /usr/share is the right place. /usr should be able to be mounted read-only except when software is changed. That's something you can't do if you keep websites there. /var/www or /srv/www are much better choices.
You got me wrong. :-) /usr/share is used only for the datadir. According to configure this is for "read-only architecture-independent data". And those things should stay in /usr/share. There is no pre-configured documentroot where you have to put your webpages. That's up to the user who has to adjust httpd.conf to his needs. Nobody should put his web content under /usr/share. :-) But there will be an install message about this.
/usr/share will host the error directory. I for one have several hosts with custom error files, although I suppose a rw remount to change those isn't the end of the world. Dale
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
+1 on the change from /home, but I don't think /usr/share is the right place. /usr should be able to be mounted read-only except when software is changed. That's something you can't do if you keep websites there. /var/www or /srv/www are much better choices.
You got me wrong. :-) /usr/share is used only for the datadir. According to configure this is for "read-only architecture-independent data". And those things should stay in /usr/share. There is no pre-configured documentroot where you have to put your webpages. That's up to the user who has to adjust httpd.conf to his needs. Nobody should put his web content under /usr/share. :-) But there will be an install message about this.
So, just curious - what is the default DocumentRoot then? I figure a lot of people won't switch from the default on initial install, so it's still kind of important.
Am Freitag, 20. Juni 2008 19:16:36 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
So, just curious - what is the default DocumentRoot then? I figure a lot of people won't switch from the default on initial install, so it's still kind of important.
I am sorry this package has some more issues than expected. I'll fix that soon. And I think I'll set /srv/www as default docroot. Btw: does anybody know why the previous maintainer has used /etc/httpd/conf instead of /etc/httpd? -- http://www.archlinux.de
I am sorry this package has some more issues than expected. I'll fix that soon. And I think I'll set /srv/www as default docroot.
That sounds acceptable.
Btw: does anybody know why the previous maintainer has used /etc/httpd/conf instead of /etc/httpd?
No idea, but it's the standard on many distros. There are normally other things (symlinks to logs, modules, etc at least) in /etc/httpd/. Dale
Am Sonntag, 22. Juni 2008 15:20:54 schrieb Dale Blount:
No idea, but it's the standard on many distros. There are normally other things (symlinks to logs, modules, etc at least) in /etc/httpd/.
Yes, I have seen this. I hav put a heavily rewritten package into testing. I hope this is a lot better now :-) -- http://www.archlinux.de
participants (4)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Dale Blount
-
Grigorios Bouzakis
-
Pierre Schmitz