[Lunar-commits] <moonbase> aliases: Adding lighttpd.

[Auke Kok]

On 02/25/2012 04:52 AM, Dennis Veatch wrote:
> On 02/25/2012 05:46 AM, Jean Bruenn wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> The "problem" lies in between the recent rename of apache2 to
>> httpd which is not a good thing. Even if the Apache folks name their
>> repository and project "httpd" the module name should be "apache2" as
>> it's "apache2" httpd stands for a HTTP-Daemon - Apache2 is one, Apache1
>> is one, Lighttpd is one, should I continue? If you rename apache2 to
>> httpd then please rename firefox to browser and sylpheed to
>> mail-client. A new user, trying to install apache2 will always look for
>> "apache2" and _not_ for httpd.
>>
>> Keeping that in mind, the proper solution would be to have an alias
>> called "httpd" or even "webserver" which has apache2, lighttpd,
>> apache1, apache-ssl if you really care.
>>
>>> What you've done is promoted lighthttpd to be equivalent to apache,
>>> apache2. But nothing in your commit says that you've tested
>>> everything that requires %APACHE to work with lighthttpd.
>>>
>>> $ grep -rl %APACHE *
>>> compilers/aubit4glsrc/DEPENDS
>>> web/bitweaver/DEPENDS
>>> web/drupal/DEPENDS
>>> web/htdig/DEPENDS
>>> web/mod_scgi/DEPENDS
>>>
>>> So, did you test these packages to work with lighthttpd as "%APACHE" ?
>
> No I did not test them. I did research to see if there were
> compatibility issues in the vein of them absolutely not working with
> lighttpd and there are none that I know of; the mod_scgi I am not sure
> about.
>
> Additionally, none of those are one hundred percent integrated with
> Apache in the sense of install it and your good to go. The user still
> needs to fiddle about with Apache confs or the respective confs of those
> modules and they will need to do the same if lighttpd is chosen. In that
> respect it is no different.

I have doubts that htdig will work with lighthttpd, and if I currently 
`lin htdig`, it will now provide me an option to choose lighthttpd as 
dependency, but it might just not work at all, and you just told all 
users that it would.

Normally it's OK to insert `depends $MODULE` in a dependency file, 
because you test it by compiling the one module.

But in the case of %ALIASES, you really must test all alternatives that 
are reasonable, because people will choose it and end up with a broken 
setup because you gave them the opportunity.

We don't make random %ALIASES either, they're made when we have a need 
to resolve a dependency to multiple providers of that dependency, so 
they are not arbitrary lists, they have a specific purpose.

I'd prefer you take it out again, unless it was tested.

Auke