From: nathan spindel <nathans@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 17:03:34 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] instaweb: if no httpd is specified and lighttpd doesn't exist, fall back on apache2.
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:

> 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?