From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/14021 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew DeVault Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Supporting git access via smart HTTPS protocol for musl-libc Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:57:43 -0400 Message-ID: <20190326155743.GC2267@homura.localdomain> References: <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> <20190326154700.GC23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> 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="83013"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-14037-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Mar 26 16:58:00 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 1h8oSd-000LRu-Ua for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:58:00 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 32379 invoked by uid 550); 26 Mar 2019 15:57:57 -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 32358 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2019 15:57:57 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=cmpwn.com; s=cmpwn; t=1553616012; bh=ZJn1GNOFjy185bXif+mtnYkYOf95eoMKlOdAokKLr0c=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=CPT7LeIrhGPx/p3VgrXARF5KL6fy9ygAaRw00MGf6Pc+hUYApAYv9UJgazNuYl6ng 5NU1QDCIzAVG6z24Qqo+FK4xp1Kg3Dbc9fw3L3yswvXPfdVFSTx6Sz1uPI66RIjZtY pRY/sF06f3mAi5wqipulSaToLznJk65y/e0YlTws= Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190326154700.GC23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> X-GNU: Terry Pratchett Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:14021 Archived-At: On 2019-03-26 11:47 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > 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. Does thttpd even have routing at all? As far as I can tell it is not capable of sourcing routes from anywhere other than the filesystem. This makes conditionally dispatching requests to git difficult. Perhaps I misunderstand how this kind of thing could be configured with thttpd? > I'd love to have a modern one with the same type of design. > Unfortunately all the modern ones are hideous. The design is what's antiquted. > > 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... I agree on all of these points, but I'd like to draw attention to the fact that 5-10 years from now is 5-10 years from now. That's plenty of time to come up with a better httpd, and in the meanwhile nginx has yet to go the Apache way. > > 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. I admit that I know little about busybox httpd, but assumed that the opinion expressed earlier in the thread about its viability was an informed one. However, upon studying thttpd's documentation, I concluded that it was not up to this task without egregious hacks. A similar survey of busybox httpd agrees that serving git should be possible, though somewhat convoluted - less so than thttpd would be.