Re: [PATCH] instaweb: if no httpd is specified and lighttpd doesn't exist, fall back on apache2.
- From
nathan spindel <nathans@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 11, 2008, 17:03 UTC
- Message-ID
- <5C50F5DC-CAE4-4BF2-BCAA-8CFC8CC43C59@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <ee77f5c20805110458s6f1e4908k38be50753ba38d09@mail.gmail.com>
On May 11, 2008, at 4:58 AM, David Symonds wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 3:26 PM, nathan spindel <nathans@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> -# if installed, it doesn't need further configuration (module_path) >> -test -z "$httpd" && httpd='lighttpd -f' >> +# use lighttpd if it exists, otherwise use apache2 >> +if test -z "$httpd" >> +then >> + if type "lighttpd" > /dev/null 2>&1; >> + then >> + httpd="lighttpd -f" >> + else >> + httpd="apache2 -f" >> + fi >> +fi > > I personally would prefer to use webrick over apache2, since it's much > more lightweight. That's just my two cents.
I am apathetic about which web servers are preferred, I would just like to see git-instaweb work well on Mac OS X. Kevin Ballard's suggestion was to fall back on apache2.
We could also modify the default to use [lighttpd, webrick, apache2] in that order (whichever is available). Would the community prefer that approach?