Base httpd and addons like OpenSMTPD extras in ports?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Base httpd and addons like OpenSMTPD extras in ports?

Chris Bennett-4
Don't get mad, please!!! ;-}

My work and mind has been elsewhere, so I'm not sure what people are
really begging for and what is silly to include.

Keeping the base small is great!

But would it be reasonable to throw in some ports that addon some extra
features that only a smaller number of people want?

I know I will be using rewrites myself when I move over to base httpd
when 6.4 comes out.

I bought three E-books from Lucas, but every time I sit down and start
reading, something pops up that tears me away.

Small, clean and KISS are fully supported by me.
Still....

Just a bit of curiosity if this might be a good idea or not.

Thanks,
Chris Bennett


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Base httpd and addons like OpenSMTPD extras in ports?

jungle Boogie
Chris,

What are httpd add-ons?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Base httpd and addons like OpenSMTPD extras in ports?

Chris Bennett-4
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 03:08:46AM +0000, jungle Boogie wrote:
> Chris,
>
> What are httpd add-ons?

Umm, base http did not have rewrites before, now it does.
That could have been does as an addon instead.

Chris


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Base httpd and addons like OpenSMTPD extras in ports?

Alexander Hall


On August 28, 2018 5:17:11 AM GMT+02:00, Chris Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 03:08:46AM +0000, jungle Boogie wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>> What are httpd add-ons?
>
>Umm, base http did not have rewrites before, now it does.
>That could have been does as an addon instead.

I'm really not sure what you're suggesting. More stuff in base, or less?

httpd lives and is developed in the OpenBSD source tree. Do you suggest adding some add-on hook and whatnot API would be to simplify it?

>
>Chris

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Base httpd and addons like OpenSMTPD extras in ports?

Ingo Schwarze
In reply to this post by Chris Bennett-4
Hi,

what the decision what is in base vs. in ports ultimately boils down
to is developer convenience.  Consequently, that's one of the rare
things non-developers really can't help with.

It may also be convenient for users that small, solid, and functional
solutions for many common tasks are already available in base, so it's
harder to break your system by opting out of installing vital stuff
(well, you can still break it if you try hard enough, xbase anybody?).
But that's really only a non-critical by-product because it's very
easy for users to install the ports they need.

But the other way round is really pointless: if something is in
base for developer convenience, it really doesn't hurt users, even
if many don't use it.  For example, you probably shouldn't run
bgpd(8) at home unless your name is Theo, yet moving it into ports
would be a major PITA, and no developer would even half-seriously
consider it.  Just as an obvious example.

Yours,
  Ingo

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Base httpd and addons like OpenSMTPD extras in ports?

Chris Bennett-4
OK, that all makes sense.
I probably made a poor subject line for this too.

I was busy with other things when nginx was discarded from base and
httpd was substituted in. I really didn't like a few things I read about
nginx, but the whole discussion about httpd I missed out on reading up
on.

This seems like a good question to ask, since it might have been a
useful method of having working, but low-priority modules separately out
of the way, or not.

Thanks, this answer also makes what's going on behind the scenes with
many choices all over the base and the developers thought processes much
clearer to me.

I'm glad I asked this question. Totally forgetting about httpd, your
answer helps with the bigger picture. Which is really more important
than any particular program in base.

Thanks,
Chris