On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 07:56:11PM +0000, Amanda waite wrote: > We felt that it's very likely that users will want to run more than one > version of Lighttpd on the same system and so provisioned for it.
Why did you think that would be common? Like I said, it doesn't appear that this is common on a handful of common Linux distributions; what would make the situation different on Solaris? > In doing so we tried to stick with many of the conventions that had > already been established with Apache2. The layout of the Lighttpd > integration is very similar to that of Apache2 including the versioning > of the document root. Yup. I don't agree with the way Apache has been versioned, either, though I understand why we delivered both 1.3 and 2.x for a while. Why we haven't yet gotten rid of 1.3, or why we now ship two versions of 2.x is completely beyond me. I think it's nuts. > Once you've decided on having multiple versions then you really have to > version everything on the assumption that both versions would be run > simultaneously. Yup; it's that assumption I'm questioning. >> Why are you providing support for mysql, but not postgres? Will you >> include support for sqlite once it integrates? > > Lighttpd supports MySQL for the vhost module (which is actually called > mod_mysql_vhost) which allows users to host a vhost's docroot in a MySQL > DB, there is no equivalent module that supports Postgres. SQLite is used > only with the WebDAV module and we will certainly look at adding support > for that module once the integration of SQLite3 is complete. Ah, okay. Database support is not generic; it's just for one particular module to use. Is there a text or dbm database backend available, too, for folks who might not want to load a full database onto their system? >> You'll need to provide the RBAC information that you mention in passing. > > Is that usual then? what level of detail would you suggest? The actual > lines that will be added to auths_attr and prof_attr? Yup, that'd be fine. >> It's project private, so I don't care too much, but why do you have a pid >> file? > > I guess it's what happens when you are writing your first Arc Case and you > look around at other Arc Cases that have been through the review process. > You tend to use them as a starting point as to what to document and what > not to document. When working on the final draft we felt that it actually > should be noted that Lighttpd has a pid file. <shrug> It's extraneous in the interface table, since you're not putting it in a Public directory and it's not a Public interface itself. But it's also extraneous on Solaris, since it's never actually going to be used by anything -- SMF manages all of that for you without the need for a pid file. You don't have to go to any trouble to remove it, but as it was, it stood out. Danek
