From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Aug 27 05:14:58 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id FAA02310 for ports-outgoing; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 05:14:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bdd.net (bdd.net [207.61.119.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA02305 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 05:14:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (james@localhost) by bdd.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA14126; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 08:13:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 08:13:37 -0400 (EDT) From: James FitzGibbon To: Mark Murray cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Feedback on CGI programs wanted. In-Reply-To: <199608270615.IAA14785@grumble.grondar.za> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Mark Murray wrote: > Have a look at ports/www/wwwcount. That one puts its cgi binary into > the cgi-bin/ dir. Maybe you want to try that approach? That's actually the opposite to what I want to try. That installs the binary in /usr/local/www/cgi-bin/Count.cgi. It also puts some things into /usr/local/etc/Counter. My personal opinion is that if a machine is a dedicated web server, the persona responsible for running it isn't going to rely strictly on a port. Certainly since the port was out of date until about 3 months ago, many people set up Apache themselves. Other people run Netscape commerce or CERN, which install into /usr/local/etc/https and httpd (I think). My machines use /usr/local/www, but with everything (conf, logs, docs, the whole thing) under that one tree. I can understand the thinking that ports should be built to co-exist with other ports. If you're building a port for a web server and it works with the apache port, great. For some smaller programs, I agree and use this (for example I check for /usr/local/Minerva/lib/libmsql.a in some of my ports to verify the build of MiniSQL). A web server just seems to be too integral a part of a system to assume that people have done it by the book. I suppose the ideal was of doing this would be an interactive configuration, and while that's not out of the question, I've met a number of people who didn't even *know* about the ports collection - just the packages. Some people just don't want to learn, so every NO_PACKAGE we commit reduces the number of users of the program. Well, that's my morning rant over with. There must be some simple yet elegant solution we're missing here, right ? -- j. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | James FitzGibbon james@nexis.net | | Integrator, The Nexis Group Voice/Fax : 416 410-0100 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------