[darcs-users] darcs_cgi paths (again)

David Roundy droundy at jdj5.mit.edu
Tue May 20 21:51:24 UTC 2003


On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 11:29:01PM +0300, Aggelos Economopoulos wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 May 2003 22:45, David Roundy wrote:
> > If there is a (different) standard config file location for BSD
> > systems, perhaps it would be best to set the config file location at
> > configure time, although that would be a pain for the
> > documentation... Or perhaps I could have a search path for the config
> > file, at least if there's no chance that the BSD config file location
> > would be writeable by non-root on linux and vice versa.
> 
> Typically, /etc is only used for configuration files of the base system;
> all the files installed by external applications end up somewhere under
> /usr/local . So apache, for example, places its configuration files in
> /usr/local/etc/apache/ , its startup script is
> /usr/local/etc/rc.d/apache.sh and the default www directory is
> /usr/local/www . Same goes for man pages, etc. See the hier(7) man page
> (url broken with a newline for readability):
> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=hier&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath
> =FreeBSD+5.0-current&format=html
> 
> So I think a ./configure hack (not preferable if it's just going to be an ad 
> hoc solution) or a adding a search path is necessary. It's not that important 
> anyway.

Sounds like a ./configure option would be appropriate.  Having a search
patch would be easier, but then people could run into trouble if they
somehow had a /etc/darcs/cgi.conf and kept editing their
/usr/local/etc/darcs/cgi.conf and finding that it made no difference.
Seems to me that there really can only be one configuration file location,
and setting it at the same time as you set your --prefix makes sense.

On the other hand, Peter expressed a willingness to work on the configure
scripts, so I'll leave this for him, although I will make the conf file
support configuration of the cache directory as well as the repo directory.
These issues aren't important to people like you, who compile their darcs
(and darcs_cgi) themselves, but for binary-only distributions (which are
most of them) it makes a big difference.

> btw, should I default to only replying to darcs-users@ (since this seems
> to be the accepted practice)?

It doesn't matter to me, since my procmail script eliminates duplicate
email.  However, on most lists I'm on that seems to be the accepted
practice, with non-subscribers required to mention it if they want to be
cc'ed with the reply.
-- 
David Roundy
http://civet.berkeley.edu/droundy/




More information about the darcs-users mailing list