From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/14020 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Supporting git access via smart HTTPS protocol for musl-libc Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:47:00 -0400 Message-ID: <20190326154700.GC23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20190326010933.GC3713@localhost> <397c5906-090a-460e-7ea8-8f9248e0be59@adelielinux.org> <20190326013706.GV23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20190326015434.GB8855@localhost> <20190326025937.GW23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20190326100245.GA1900@localhost> <20190326150430.GY23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20190326150901.GA2267@homura.localdomain> <20190326151344.GB23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20190326154304.GB2267@homura.localdomain> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="33991"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-14036-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Mar 26 16:47:15 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h8oIE-0008jn-Kl for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:47:14 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 20241 invoked by uid 550); 26 Mar 2019 15:47:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 20221 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2019 15:47:12 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190326154304.GB2267@homura.localdomain> Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:14020 Archived-At: 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