Configuring obsolete web servers ?

[Vincent Bernat]

Hi !

Several packages (roundcube, textpattern, mediawiki1.10, zabbix) are
configuring now obsolote web servers, like Apache and Apache SSL. I have
a bug against textpattern about this and don't know to handle it:
http://bugs.debian.org/434050

When PHP 4 was removed from unstable, many packages have removed their
dependencies on it. Should we do the same for configuration of web
servers ?

If yes, to avoid to rephrase all questions, I would like to configure an
additional web server (to keep multiple choices). I was thinking of
lighttpd but I did not find what convention to use (put a file in
conf.d ?). mediawiki is shipping a configuration for cherokee and put it
in site-available (configuration for Apache is in conf.d). I did not
find any packaging convention for Cherokee, so I don't know if mediawiki
approach is the good one.

Are any of you aware of a packaging convention to add applications to a
web server, apart for Apache ?

[Gunnar Wolf]

(Cc:ing Cherokee's development list)

Post by Vincent Bernat
Hi !
Several packages (roundcube, textpattern, mediawiki1.10, zabbix) are
configuring now obsolote web servers, like Apache and Apache SSL. I have
http://bugs.debian.org/434050
When PHP 4 was removed from unstable, many packages have removed their
dependencies on it. Should we do the same for configuration of web
servers ?
If yes, to avoid to rephrase all questions, I would like to configure an
additional web server (to keep multiple choices). I was thinking of
lighttpd but I did not find what convention to use (put a file in
conf.d ?). mediawiki is shipping a configuration for cherokee and put it
in site-available (configuration for Apache is in conf.d). I did not
find any packaging convention for Cherokee, so I don't know if mediawiki
approach is the good one.
Are any of you aware of a packaging convention to add applications to a
web server, apart for Apache ?

Cherokee is about to completely change its configuration structure for
its upcoming 0.6 release - Cherokee guys: Vincent is talking about
ways to ensure Debian packages providing webapps can incorporate
configuration snippets on (as much as possible) all of the webservers
we support. While we currently ship Cherokee 0.5.5 in our stable
release, whatever comes out of this will only affect the testing and
unstable distributions (that's where development takes place).

What would be the preferred way of shipping snippets with 0.6? AFAICT,
the configuration will now be mostly handled via a third program,
right? If so, maybe the snippets would be fed into this program,
am I right, or I lost track of it all? ;-)

Greetings,

[sean finney]

hey gunnar,

Post by Gunnar Wolf
Cherokee is about to completely change its configuration structure for
its upcoming 0.6 release - Cherokee guys: Vincent is talking about
ways to ensure Debian packages providing webapps can incorporate
configuration snippets on (as much as possible) all of the webservers
we support. While we currently ship Cherokee 0.5.5 in our stable
release, whatever comes out of this will only affect the testing and
unstable distributions (that's where development takes place).
What would be the preferred way of shipping snippets with 0.6? AFAICT,
the configuration will now be mostly handled via a third program,
right? If so, maybe the snippets would be fed into this program,
am I right, or I lost track of it all? ;-)

from a packaging side of things, i think having a conf.d style directory is
probably sufficient, or at the least a "enable this snippet"/"disable this
snippit" script that we could rely upon.


sean