On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:47:33 +0200 Xavier <x.guim...@free.fr> wrote: > Hi all, > > The authoritative list of virtual package provides: > httpd a HTTP server > httpd-cgi a CGI-capable HTTP server > httpd-wsgi a WSGI-capable HTTP server (python 2 API) > httpd-wsgi3 a WSGI-capable HTTP server (python 3 API) > > I would like to propose this: > httpd-fastcgi a FastCGI-capable HTTP server (or server > plugin)
As much as it rubs me the wrong way, I don't see many reasons to avoid creating this. In fact, the only reason I have is that it could encourage people to think fcgi is okay to use. This virtual package could probably be satisfied by libapache2-mod-fcgid, fcgiwrap, or spawn-fcgi. I believe fcgiwrap has some systemd magic-sauce that would, in theory, provide a relatively simple way for apps to listen on a well-known unix-socket path (similar to the way uwsgi works). Personally, I always recommend uwsgi over any of the avaialable cgi/fastcgi servers, such as php-fpm, ruby-fcgi, python-fcgi, etc. When you have uwsgi available, and it's capable of handling all those languages, including legacy raw-cgi apps, it seems kinda silly to use anything else. ;) (even mailman runs great behind it..) -- Michael Lustfield
