packages requiring "httpd" as opposed to requiring "webserver"?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Remi Collet wrote:

> Le 20/02/2014 14:43, Robert P. J. Day a écrit :
>
> >   is that considered good package design? it may be that there are
> > some packages that absolutely need some webserver feature that is
> > provided only by httpd, but is it also possible that some packages are
> > being unnecessarily restrictive? just trying to understand the
> > packaging philosophy here.
>
> If a package provides only some static files, it could perhaps only
> require a "webserver" (except that all webserver don't use the same
> document root, and have different way to manage aliases).
>
> If a package provides some "httpd" configuration file, it must, of
> course, require httpd.
>
> For PHP web-app, mod_php + httpd is the only working "out-of-the-box"
> solution.
>
> Yes it will be nice to have web-app with working configuration for all
> available webserver.... just a dream (for user) or a nightmare (for
> packager).

  oh, i have no doubt that many packages really do require httpd
specifically, as opposed to just a generic "webserver". i'm just as
convinced that there are at least some of them that are simply being
lazy and taking the easy way out, rather than writing proper and
general installation scripts. :-)

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================