Re: Supporting git access via smart HTTPS protocol for musl-libc

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:43:04AM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote:
> On 2019-03-26 11:13 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > The problem is that I don't know how to hook up the smart git http
> > backend via cgi. Maybe you're suggesting running it on a separate
> > httpd with haproxy doing the routing, but that's not compatible with
> > TLS-layer (rather than HTTP-layer) use of haproxy, and the latter does
> > not work with thttpd's cgi conformance issues, nor do I want to
> > introduce further dependency on haproxy, which is a big hammer. I'd
> > rather move in the opposite direction towards something like a
> > non-broken version of stunnel.
> 
> After a more detailed study of thttpd, I understand why this is
> difficult.

I don't see why thttpd is making it difficult. It makes routing with
haproxy difficult only because haproxy is more pedantic than any web
browser is about headers, but I don't want to use haproxy routing
anyway.

> Honestly, thttpd seems like a really antiquated and
> inflexible httpd.

I'd love to have a modern one with the same type of design.
Unfortunately all the modern ones are hideous.

> I'd vote in favor of switching to nginx, in the

nginx doesn't even support cgi. It just forwards to another server for
cgi. It's also horribly bloated and enterprise-ey. In 5-10 years it
will go exactly the same way Apache did. Watch for them to have their
own Tomcat but for whatever language displaces Java...

> interest of having good before having perfect, with a plan to perhaps
> port OpenBSD httpd or something similar.
> 
> However, the other suggestion of busybox httpd + git-http-backend seems
> reasonable to me. It sounds like you were hoping to keep thttpd in play,
> though, which seems folly to me.

If it works with busybox httpd it should work with thttpd.

Rich