apache22 web root directive

[Rong-En Fan]

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:58:24PM +0200, Mel wrote:
> On Monday 10 September 2007 14:58:13 Rong-En Fan wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 07:16:15AM -0500, Eric wrote:
> > > Matthew Seaman wrote:
> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > >> Hash: SHA256
> > >>
> > >> Eric wrote:
> > >>> close, but I am not running in a non standard DocumentRoot as far as I
> > >>> know. its set to apache22's /usr/local/www/apache22/data, which is the
> > >>> default, but if you look at the mailgraph Makefile, it uses
> > >>> /usr/local/www/data for the install.
> > >>>
> > >>> the more i look at it, the more it seems like its a mailgraph issue.
> > >>>
> > >>> i guess I am curious of the apache20 default of /usr/local/www/data was
> > >>> around so long its just what everyone assumes, but from what I can
> > >>> tell, thats not the recommended practice. isnt it better to install to
> > >>> /usr/local/www/mailgraph and then alias things?
> > >>
> > >> Web-based applications will generally install into a subdirectory of
> > >> /usr/local/www independent of what web server you use.  There are
> > >> some exceptions -- eg. cacti installs into /usr/local/share/cacti
> > >>
> > >> This means that you will have to make provision in your httpd.conf
> > >> (or whatever the equivalent is for the webserver you're using) so
> > >> that the filesystem space the application lives in is mapped into
> > >> the URL-space provided by your webserver.  In apache, that typically
> > >> means setting up an alias and then applying appropriate access
> > >> controls in a <Location> or <Directory> block.
> > >>
> > >> Formerly many web applications installed into the apache specific
> > >> directory /usr/local/www/data but this behaviour is now discouraged.
> > >> It's not, AFAIK, absolutely forbidden, but you'ld have a hard time
> > >> getting a new port through committal if it behaved like that. I
> > >> don't think there has been a concerted effort to find all of the
> > >> older ports that install under /usr/local/www/data and modify them;
> > >> rather individual maintainers are expected to modify their ports as
> > >> the occasion arises.
> > >>
> > >> 	Cheers,
> > >>
> > >> 	Matthew
> > >>
> > >> - --
> > >
> > > yes, and this is how i would prefer to see mailgraph operate as well.  I
> > > was just pointing out the fact that mailgraph didnt work this way.
> > >
> > > Just to be clear, I am not doing anything out of the ordinary or using a
> > > non-recommended DocumentRoot.
> > >
> > > The patch at
> > >
> > > http://people.freebsd.org/~rafan/mailgraph.diff
> > >
> > > appears to work properly, but shouldnt mailgraph be installed to
> > > /usr/local/www/mailgraph as per the recommendations and an alias added to
> > > apache for access to mailgraph?
> >
> > As I said in previous mail, I want minimal user interaction
> > for such a simple script. I asked on ports@ before committing.
> 
> So why don't ports use the convenient etc/apache*/Includes?
> Defaults:
> WWWNAME ?= ${PORTNAME}
> WWWDIR ?= ${LOCALBASE}/www/${PORTNAME}
> 
> post-install:
> 	${ECHO_CMD} Alias /${WWNAME}/ "${WWDIR}" > \
> 		${PREFIX}/etc/apache*/Includes/${WWWNAME}.conf
> 
> User can override, minimal user interaction...

Apache is not the only http server.

Regards,
Rong-En Fan

> -- 
> Mel