[ITP] fcgi-2.4.0-1

[Max Bowsher]

Reini Urban wrote:
> Max Bowsher schrieb:
>>
>> 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.

OK, the fact that upstream does not is a fairly good reason.  However, 
Debian does ship a shared library, so we would not be alone in doing so 
if we decided to.

I suggest that if it is reasonably easy to get a DLL to build, then we 
should have a DLL, and no static library, in the distribution, because 
of the eased maintenance (dependencies always use the current library, 
not what was current when they were built).

If, on the other hand, it is infeasibly difficult to get a DLL building, 
we could live with just a static library.

>>> E.g. mandrake, suse and PLD have their mod_fastcgi.so 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.
>>> http://rpmseek.com/rpm/php-fcgi-5.1.2-1mdk.i586.html?hl=de&cs=fcgi:PN:0:0:1:0:2604182 
>>>
>>
>> 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.

Please go check your facts before you cast my words back at me. 
mod_fastcgi does *NOT* use libfcgi - a fact I have verified by building 
mod_fastcgi successfully, without having libfcgi installed at all.

>>> Say a standalone /usr/lib/apache2/mod_fastcgi.so 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.

That's fine, but could you try to rephrase what you are trying to say, 
since you obviously consider the underlying point to be important.

>>> 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.

Please do try to clarify this, as well. I'm especially confused about 
how native-windows versions have any relevance to the Cygwin packaging.

>>> 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.

Again, please clarify, I don't understand the problem here.

To the best of my knowledge, FastCGI is a fixed and unchanging protocol 
- upgrades should be bugfixes only and should not cause breakage.

Max.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-apps/attachments/20060806/b7ad91d7/attachment.sig>