On 16/03/12 09:02, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > Le 16/03/2012 03:01, Anssi Hannula a écrit : >>> So I'd rather revert the change, and make lighttpd autonomous also. >>> Unless someone can convince me there is an advantage having lighttpd >>> executing as 'apache' :) >> >> The web applications policy has files being owned by 'apache' user, and >> I don't see how that could work if lighttpd used a different user: >> https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Web_applications_policy > This policy was crafted with apache in mind only, not all available web > servers. > And its explicitely refers to apache integration, not generic webserver > compatibility. For instance, the configuration file provided is > apache-specific. > Even if we have compatible file permissions, and if we asked packagers to also > provide a default lighttpd configuration file (slighly more work), that would > still be mostly theorical compatibility without actual testing from the > packagers (many more work). > > So, rather than a potential compatibility, without documented limits, should > we > rather not make clear than adapting our web applications package to any other > web server than apache is fully up to the end user ?
I agree with Guillaume on that. Some web applications might work with lighttpd and apache, but the other web servers might be incompatible. It's better for now to say that web apps are packaged for apache, and maybe, in the wiki, people can write how to adapt to other web servers. Best, -- Malo
