Web server conf selection

[Christopher Meng]

Hi,

I'm packaging a software which can be used under apache/nginx/lighttpd.

Should I choose httpd as default and put conf into /etc/httpd/conf.d or
just put everything in doc and let users choose?

Thanks.


*Yours sincerely,*
*Christopher Meng*

Always playing in Fedora Project

http://cicku.me

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

Yes.

More seriously, I'd go with the default configuration, and consider adding
spare packages to go with the others if you've got a well-defined
configuration.


On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Christopher Meng <cickumqt(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>  I'm packaging a software which can be used under apache/nginx/lighttpd.
>
>  Should I choose httpd as default and put conf into /etc/httpd/conf.d or
>  just put everything in doc and let users choose?
>
>  Thanks.
>
>
>  *Yours sincerely,*
>  *Christopher Meng*
>
>  Always playing in Fedora Project
>
>  http://cicku.me
>
>  --
>  packaging mailing list
>  packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
>

[Christopher Meng]

Sorry, yes for what?

Sent from Subor Gameplayer

[Remi Collet]

Le 02/04/2013 04:31, Christopher Meng a écrit :
>  Hi,
>  
>  I'm packaging a software which can be used under apache/nginx/lighttpd.
>  
>  Should I choose httpd as default and put conf into /etc/httpd/conf.d or
>  just put everything in doc and let users choose? 
Here is some proposal.
This is a work in progress

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/WebserverDependency

Remi.

>  
>  Thanks.
>  
>  
>  /Yours sincerely,/
>  /*Christopher Meng*/
>  
>  Always playing in Fedora Project
>  
>  http://cicku.me
>  
>  
>  --
>  packaging mailing list
>  packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
>

[Christopher Meng]

Thanks!  Fedora really needs a feature like this, I'll follow it.

Sent from Subor Gameplayer

[Jóhann B. Guðmundsson]

On 04/04/2013 07:21 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
>  Le 02/04/2013 04:31, Christopher Meng a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm packaging a software which can be used under apache/nginx/lighttpd.
> >
> > Should I choose httpd as default and put conf into /etc/httpd/conf.d or
> > just put everything in doc and let users choose?
>  Here is some proposal.
>  This is a work in progress
>
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/WebserverDependency
>
>  Remi. 
This proposal lacks restart section of apache/nginx/lighttpd services 
which arguably should not be done...

JBG

[Remi Collet]

Le 07/04/2013 20:05, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" a écrit :
>  On 04/04/2013 07:21 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
> > Le 02/04/2013 04:31, Christopher Meng a écrit :
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm packaging a software which can be used under apache/nginx/lighttpd.
> >>
> >> Should I choose httpd as default and put conf into /etc/httpd/conf.d or
> >> just put everything in doc and let users choose?
> > Here is some proposal.
> > This is a work in progress
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/WebserverDependency
> >
> > Remi.
>  
>  This proposal lacks restart section of apache/nginx/lighttpd services
>  which arguably should not be done... 
Feel free to add comments in the discussion page.

>  
>  JBG
>  
>  -- 
>  packaging mailing list
>  packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Christopher Meng]

Do we really use -core as name of it?

I really think we should let packagers add scripts and when installing it
rpm just asks users to choose.

Sent from Subor Gameplayer

[Manuel Wolfshant]

On 04/08/2013 03:28 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
>  Do we really use -core as name of it?
>
>  I really think we should let packagers add scripts and when installing 
>  it rpm just asks users to choose.
>  
Asking users to chose at install time is a VERY bad idea because the 
packages are more often than not installed via unattended manners. I 
definitely would not want my PXE installs to stop in the middle and ask 
for "something"

[Jan Kaluža]

On 04/08/2013 02:28 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
>  Do we really use -core as name of it? 
We have to have some name for the original web application without any 
webserver dependency. Ideally, we would just use the package name (like 
"mailman") and "mailman-httpd" for httpd related config files, but
this 
can't be done, because we should keep backward compatibility. However, 
it could be preferred way for newly added packages.

>  I really think we should let packagers add scripts and when
> installing
>  it rpm just asks users to choose.
>
>  Sent from Subor Gameplayer
>
>
>
>  --
>  packaging mailing list
>  packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
>  
Jan Kaluza

[Jóhann B. Guðmundsson]

On 04/09/2013 09:39 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
>  On 04/08/2013 02:28 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
> > Do we really use -core as name of it?
>
>  We have to have some name for the original web application without any 
>  webserver dependency. Ideally, we would just use the package name 
>  (like "mailman") and "mailman-httpd" for httpd related config files,
>
>  but this can't be done, because we should keep backward compatibility. 
>  However, it could be preferred way for newly added packages. 
Or skip that backwards compatibility and just have a flag release with 
all those changes.


JBG

[Gregor Tätzner]

On Tuesday 09 April 2013 12:10:18 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>  On 04/09/2013 09:39 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
>  > On 04/08/2013 02:28 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
>  >> Do we really use -core as name of it?
>  > 
>  > We have to have some name for the original web application without any
>  > webserver dependency. Ideally, we would just use the package name
>  > (like "mailman") and "mailman-httpd" for httpd related config
> files,
>  > but this can't be done, because we should keep backward compatibility.
>  > However, it could be preferred way for newly added packages.
>  
>  Or skip that backwards compatibility and just have a flag release with
>  all those changes.
>  
>  
>  JBG
>  --
>  packaging mailing list
>  packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging 
I did something similar for owncloud. Thats probably the first package 
implementing this feature before it's even approved ;)

http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/owncloud.git/tree/

[Jan Kaluža]

On 04/09/2013 02:10 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>  On 04/09/2013 09:39 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
> > On 04/08/2013 02:28 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
> >> Do we really use -core as name of it?
> >
> > We have to have some name for the original web application without any
> > webserver dependency. Ideally, we would just use the package name
> > (like "mailman") and "mailman-httpd" for httpd related config
> files,
> > but this can't be done, because we should keep backward compatibility.
> > However, it could be preferred way for newly added packages.
>
>  Or skip that backwards compatibility and just have a flag release with
>  all those changes. 
How would upgrade work then? If I understand it well, RPM would update 
just "mailman" package, so the httpd config files would be removed 
(since they would be in "mailman-httpd" and this won't be
"mailman"'s 
dependency). User would have to install -httpd subpakage manually. I 
think this is not OK, but maybe it's not problem to do it like that and 
it is me who is wrong :).

>  JBG
>  --
>  packaging mailing list
>  packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging 
Jan Kaluza

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Mar 9 avril 2013 11:39, Jan Kaluža a écrit :
>  On 04/08/2013 02:28 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
> > Do we really use -core as name of it?
>
>  We have to have some name for the original web application without any
>  webserver dependency. Ideally, we would just use the package name (like
>  "mailman") and "mailman-httpd" for httpd related config files, but
> this
>  can't be done, because we should keep backward compatibility. However,
>  it could be preferred way for newly added packages. 
you just need to have something like
foo-httpd (some EVR) requires foo = same EVR
foo-httpd (some EVR) obsoletes foo <= first EVR with new layout

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

[Jan Kaluža]

On 04/10/2013 08:21 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>  Le Mar 9 avril 2013 11:39, Jan Kaluža a écrit :
> > On 04/08/2013 02:28 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
> >> Do we really use -core as name of it?
> >
> > We have to have some name for the original web application without any
> > webserver dependency. Ideally, we would just use the package name (like
> > "mailman") and "mailman-httpd" for httpd related config files,
> but this
> > can't be done, because we should keep backward compatibility. However,
> > it could be preferred way for newly added packages.
>
>  you just need to have something like
>  foo-httpd (some EVR) requires foo = same EVR
>  foo-httpd (some EVR) obsoletes foo <= first EVR with new layout
>  
Thanks, that sounds like good idea. I will try to get it work here and 
update my feature page.

Jan Kaluza

[Remi Collet]

Le 11/04/2013 07:24, Jan Kaluža a écrit :
>  On 04/10/2013 08:21 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >
> > Le Mar 9 avril 2013 11:39, Jan Kaluža a écrit :
> >> On 04/08/2013 02:28 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
> >>> Do we really use -core as name of it?
> >>
> >> We have to have some name for the original web application without any
> >> webserver dependency. Ideally, we would just use the package name (like
> >> "mailman") and "mailman-httpd" for httpd related config
> files, but this
> >> can't be done, because we should keep backward compatibility. However,
> >> it could be preferred way for newly added packages. 
I think having a default browser configuration in the main package is
not a problem. Apache is the default browser for most web apps for years.

> >
> > you just need to have something like
> > foo-httpd (some EVR) requires foo = same EVR
> > foo-httpd (some EVR) obsoletes foo <= first EVR with new layout
> >
>  
>  Thanks, that sounds like good idea. I will try to get it work here and
>  update my feature page. 
Don't forget user experience.

A user running "yum install mailman" expects to install something
working out of the box (without any need to install something else)

So, if really you want the main package to provide only non-webserver
dependent files, you probably need to requires it

ex mailman requires mailman-webconf
   mailman-{httpd,nginx,lighttpd} requires mailman-webconf


Another solution will be to provides all webservers configuration on the
main package and only requires webserver. But this is a bit ugly, as we
can't be sure it will work with all servers.

Remi.

>  
>  Jan Kaluza
>  
>  
>  -- 
>  packaging mailing list
>  packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Christopher Meng]

For the packages which use Perl built-in web server,  should I have to
specify it also?

For instance https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947071

Sent from Subor Gameplayer