On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Amanda Waite<Amanda.Waite at sun.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Attached is a draft Arc case for spawn-fcgi in SFW. As a reminder, > spawn-fcgi is the component that was part of Lighttpd but is now distributed > as a separate source bundle. > > The plan here is to change nothing about the Lighttpd user experience in > OpenSolaris, yet allow spawn-fcgi to be installed separately. Therefore I've > maintained the same directory structure and the two spawn-fcgi install to > /usr/lighttpd/1.4 just as before. ... > ? ? ? ?2.3 Lighttpd and spawn-fcgi > > ? ? ? ?To maintain support for spawn-fcgi in the Lighttpd packages, the > ? ? ? ?spawn-fcgi package will be listed as a dependency of the Lighttpd > ? ? ? ?package SUNWlighttpd14u > > ? ? ? ?2.4 Directory Naming and Structure > > ? ? ? ?The proposed directory layout for spawn-fcgi is: > > ? ? ? ?/usr/lighttpd/1.4 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? /bin > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? /man > > ? ? ? ?Note: These directories are delivered by the Lighttpd packages. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ?We continue to use the Lighttpd directory structure so as > ? ? ? ? ? ? ?this is where spawn-fcgi is located in the Lighttpd ARC case > ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(LSARC/2008/191).
This looks circular to me. If I read that right, lighthttpd the package depends on the spawn-fcgi package; yet spawn-fcgi depends on pathnames that are delivered by lighthttpd. While you can get away with this with SVR4 packaging (the spawn-fcgi package can also deliver those pathnames), in the IPS world each path can only be delivered once ass I understand it. In that case spawn-fcgi would require lighthttpd to be installed first. Does it make sense to have lighthttpd installed without spawn-fcgi? Or spawn-fcgi without lighthttpd? -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
