Jyri Virkki wrote: >>> - You might want to provide a symbolic link so that users can access >>> lighttpd from /usr/lighttpd/bin like the same way we have done for PHP >>> and MySQL. >>> >> >> What's the logic behind that? Is it mainly to make it easier to get to? >> > > Yes but let's also consider the distinction between bins meant for > human consumption vs. those which are not. We don't, for example, link > /usr/apache2/2.2/bin/httpd from elsewhere because the normal use case > is to start it via smf, so the binary being in an inconvenient > location is of no consequence. smf knows how to find it and that's all > that matters. > > lighttpd is also a web server so naturally falls in the same > category. Just start via smf and it'll "just work". I remember the > earlier comments here about some people starting lighttpd manually > from the CLI. The thread didn't go far so I didn't see a conclusion on > whether that's a primary use case or not. > I asked the Lighttpd forum and had a couple of replies, both came people who had a high level of involvement in the Lighttpd community. One said that they rarely run the lighttpd executable directly, only when looking at issues. The other said to treat it the same as Apache httpd. I love the idea of having everyone start lighttpd via SMF, although that will require some education which is something I can work on. So I'm now reasonably convinced that the correct approach is to treat it like Apache httpd. That leaves us with /usr/lighttpd/14/sbin/lighttpd and /usr/lighttpd/bin/spawn-fcgi as the path to the executables. Are links necessary? I personally would prefer to type /usr/lighttpd/sbin/lighttpd than /usr/lighttpd/14/sbin/lighttpd (and I run lighttpd several times a day, 50% with SMF and 50% on the command line). At the same time though I don't want to create any confusion, confusion that might arise if both 1.4. and 1.5 are installed and the user has no idea what they are running when they type /usr/lighttpd/sbin/lighttpd. Seems to be a case of "easier to type" vs "more potential for confusion". I'd go with not creating the link, users have several options for making it easier to type. i.e.: Learn about SMF, alias it, add it to their path, etc.
Amanda
