Re: [PATCH 1/2] git-instaweb: support Fedora/Red Hat apache module path
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Aug 7, 2018, 21:25 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqk1p1kgwq.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20180807072548.12764-1-skisela@redhat.com>
Sebastian Kisela <skisela@redhat.com> writes:
Show 12 quoted lines
> On Fedora-derived systems, the apache httpd package installs modules
> under /usr/lib{,64}/httpd/modules, depending on whether the system is
> 32- or 64-bit. A symlink from /etc/httpd/modules is created which
> points to the proper module path. Use it to support apache on Fedora,
> CentOS, and Red Hat systems.
>
> Written with assistance of Todd Zullinger <tmz@pobox.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Kisela <skisela@redhat.com>
> ---
> git-instaweb.sh | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)Thanks for a patch, and welcome to the Git development community.
Show 10 quoted lines
> diff --git a/git-instaweb.sh b/git-instaweb.sh
> index 47e38f34c..e42e58528 100755
> --- a/git-instaweb.sh
> +++ b/git-instaweb.sh
> @@ -332,6 +332,8 @@ apache2_conf () {
> module_path="/usr/lib/httpd/modules"
> test -d "/usr/lib/apache2/modules" &&
> module_path="/usr/lib/apache2/modules"
> + test -d "/etc/httpd/modules" &&
> + module_path="/etc/httpd/modules"The original already has the same issue with two entries but this patch makes it even worse by adding yet another one. The longer the code follows a bad pattern, the more it encourages future developers to follow the same bad pattern, and usually the best time to do a clean up like the following
if test -z "$module_path" then for candidate in \ /etc/httpd \ /usr/lib/apache2 \ /usr/lib/httpd \ do if test -d "$candidate/modules" then module_path="$candidate/modules" break fi done fi
is when you go from 2 to 3. Two points to note are:
- It would be easier to add the fourth one this way
- The explicit "break" makes it clear that the paths are listed in decreasing order of precedence (i.e. /etc/httpd if exists makes /usr/lib/httpd ignored even if the latter exists); the original "test -d X && M=X ; test -d Y && M=Y" gives higher precedence to the later items but readers need to wonder if it is intended or the code is simply being sloppy.
Hope this helps.