Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:51:34 +0200 From: Mel <fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com>, Rong-En Fan <rafan@freebsd.org>, Eric <eric@mikestammer.com> Subject: Re: apache22 web root directive Message-ID: <200709131251.35021.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> In-Reply-To: <20070913011525.GF81691@svm.csie.ntu.edu.tw> References: <46E482D7.8000305@mikestammer.com> <200709122258.25882.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> <20070913011525.GF81691@svm.csie.ntu.edu.tw>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 13 September 2007 03:15:25 Rong-En Fan wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:58:24PM +0200, Mel wrote: > > 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... > > Apache is not the only http server. No really. /usr/local/www/data is hardly ever the document root in the real world as well. What's in ports now: - some use /usr/local/www/portname, some use /usr/local/www/data/portname, some make efforts to look for the real document root (inconsistent) - installing into the assumed document root fails when it's not the actual document root (user interaction required) - user cannot override install location beyond $LOCALBASE/$PREFIX mechanisms Any self-respecting webserver supports aliases in one way or another, the above was an example. A 'bsd.www.mk' activated by WWWPORT=yes in a ports Makefile, that installs targets for aliasing in a detected webserver, should resolve all of the above. Anyway, wishful thinking maybe. Sure would be nice to do ls -al /usr/local/www and instantly see what packages one can offer to a virtual host. -- Mel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200709131251.35021.fbsd.questions>