Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:58:24 +0200 From: Mel <fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com>, questions@freebsd.org, Rong-En Fan <rafan@freebsd.org>, Eric <eric@mikestammer.com> Subject: Re: apache22 web root directive Message-ID: <200709122258.25882.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> In-Reply-To: <20070910125813.GD81691@svm.csie.ntu.edu.tw> References: <46E482D7.8000305@mikestammer.com> <46E5358F.1010104@mikestammer.com> <20070910125813.GD81691@svm.csie.ntu.edu.tw>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 10 September 2007 14:58:13 Rong-En Fan wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 07:16:15AM -0500, Eric wrote: > > Matthew Seaman wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA256 > >> > >> Eric wrote: > >>> close, but I am not running in a non standard DocumentRoot as far as I > >>> know. its set to apache22's /usr/local/www/apache22/data, which is the > >>> default, but if you look at the mailgraph Makefile, it uses > >>> /usr/local/www/data for the install. > >>> > >>> the more i look at it, the more it seems like its a mailgraph issue. > >>> > >>> i guess I am curious of the apache20 default of /usr/local/www/data was > >>> around so long its just what everyone assumes, but from what I can > >>> tell, thats not the recommended practice. isnt it better to install to > >>> /usr/local/www/mailgraph and then alias things? > >> > >> Web-based applications will generally install into a subdirectory of > >> /usr/local/www independent of what web server you use. There are > >> some exceptions -- eg. cacti installs into /usr/local/share/cacti > >> > >> This means that you will have to make provision in your httpd.conf > >> (or whatever the equivalent is for the webserver you're using) so > >> that the filesystem space the application lives in is mapped into > >> the URL-space provided by your webserver. In apache, that typically > >> means setting up an alias and then applying appropriate access > >> controls in a <Location> or <Directory> block. > >> > >> Formerly many web applications installed into the apache specific > >> directory /usr/local/www/data but this behaviour is now discouraged. > >> It's not, AFAIK, absolutely forbidden, but you'ld have a hard time > >> getting a new port through committal if it behaved like that. I > >> don't think there has been a concerted effort to find all of the > >> older ports that install under /usr/local/www/data and modify them; > >> rather individual maintainers are expected to modify their ports as > >> the occasion arises. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Matthew > >> > >> - -- > > > > yes, and this is how i would prefer to see mailgraph operate as well. I > > was just pointing out the fact that mailgraph didnt work this way. > > > > Just to be clear, I am not doing anything out of the ordinary or using a > > non-recommended DocumentRoot. > > > > The patch at > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~rafan/mailgraph.diff > > > > appears to work properly, but shouldnt mailgraph be installed to > > /usr/local/www/mailgraph as per the recommendations and an alias added to > > apache for access to mailgraph? > > As I said in previous mail, I want minimal user interaction > for such a simple script. I asked on ports@ before committing. So why don't ports use the convenient etc/apache*/Includes? Defaults: WWWNAME ?= ${PORTNAME} WWWDIR ?= ${LOCALBASE}/www/${PORTNAME} post-install: ${ECHO_CMD} Alias /${WWNAME}/ "${WWDIR}" > \ ${PREFIX}/etc/apache*/Includes/${WWWNAME}.conf User can override, minimal user interaction... -- Mel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200709122258.25882.fbsd.questions>