apache22 web root directive

[Rong-En Fan]

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.
Anyway, I want to collect more feedbacks before changing
current settings.

Regards,
Rong-En Fan

> 
> Eric