This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [ITP] fcgi-2.4.0-1

Max Bowsher schrieb:
Reini Urban wrote:
Max Bowsher schrieb:
Reini Urban wrote:
I want to contribute and maintain the fastcgi library.
I compiled it just as static library, which is useful for apache2,
lighttpd, ruby, php and clisp. Maybe I might be persuaded to maintain a
dll (libfcgi0) also.
I do not see how it would be useful for apache2.

Why a static library? To gain the benefits of smaller overall package
size, and of not needing to rebuild dependent packages to pick up new
library versions, I'd suggest _only_ shipping a DLL.
Well I was toying with this plan also. But found out that linux packages
don't use it.

fcgi is not a enduser package, only a developer library to enable
several packages to cooperate in a different way, so I prefered to keep
everything together and let packages link the lib statically.
This way upgrades and conflict resolutions only have to be made on
protocol changes, not software upgrades.

I don't understand this at all. *Lots* of non-enduser software is provided as DLLs. I don't understand what you mean by "upgrades and conflict resolutions" in particular.

To my mind, a DLL is strongly preferable, because all packages using the
library pick up any fixes automatically, instead of requiring a
recompilation themselves.

fcgi does not build out of the box as shared library on any target. Almost no other distro has or uses the shared library.
So why should we?

In my reasoning which is unfortunately not english enough I also explained my private POV which makes sense at least to me.

E.g. mandrake, suse and PLD have their without libfcgi
dependency, linked statically. debian's libapache2-mod-fastcgi_2.4.2
also. mandrake's php-fgci also, all clisp's also.
haven't looked further.

Sorry, but the above is entirely wrong. mod_fastcgi does not use libfcgi at all.

Sorry, but the above is entirely wrong. mod_fastcgi does use libfcgi as silent build requirement, and is not listed in the reqs because it is linked statically. Which is my point. Same for most other packages.

Say a standalone /usr/lib/apache2/ for apache2-mod_fastcgi
or /usr/lib/apache/mod_fastcgi.dll for apache-mod_fastcgi, without
libfcgi0 require, talking to a fcgi enabled ruby, clisp or php.
clisp being the only cygwin package so far which actually has it enabled.

What are you trying to say? The above paragraph isn't meaningful English.

Sorry. My native lingua is german.

The other reason is this: I don't only develop on cygwin,
I also run business services like clisp or xapian and swish cgi's with
cygwin1.dll, but I wouldn't bother to use the cygwin apache. For testing
and development it's great, similar to postgresql.
So I don't want to mix a native apache-mod_fastcgi with a cygwin fcgi
using a shared libfcgi0. Makes no sense.

The above paragraph makes no sense, too.

/var/www/ is not a natural location, in my opinion. It is certainly NOT
a good location on Cygwin to install anything that is
webserver-agnostic, as it has a long tradition of being associated with
the Apache 1.3 package. The latest FHS is fairly emphatic about service
data belonging in /srv/, not /var/.

Not /usr/share/. You should put them in /usr/lib/fcgi/examples/.

Ok. Done.

I usually run fcgi's and cgi's on win32-native apache2 and lighttpd.
How is this relevant to the Cygwin package layout?

For that user scenario where native apache and/or cygwin lighttpd has to deal with a cygwin fcgi. fcgi upgrades and breakage are dependend on developers decisions only if linked statically.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]