On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:27:33PM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:35:56PM +0300, Mindaugas R. wrote:
> > > Module Name:	src
> > > Committed By:	tls
> > > Date:		Tue Oct 16 01:14:07 UTC 2007
> > > 
> > > Update of /cvsroot/src/libexec/httpd
> > > In directory ivanova.netbsd.org:/tmp/cvs-serv29605
> > > 
> > > Log Message:
> > > Import of bozohttpd for its originally intended purpose: a small (~30k)
> > > simple run-from-inetd httpd suitable for small systems (and some large
> > > ones).
> > 
> > Why it was not discussed on <tech-userlevel> and/or other mailing lists? Why
> > pkgsrc is not enough?
> 
> I'd say because bozohttpd is excellent for using in an embedded device. 
> And we tout how we're good for embedded. We used it at Wasabi, Thor's 
> using it, and a few other folks are using it too. By putting it in base, 
> we:
> 
> 1) Reduce duplication. By having it in base, we reduce patch maintenance 
> duplication and other bits of code maintenance. We reduce the effort to 
> make it cross-compile since it is part of base.
> 
> 2) Provide something out of the box that a number of folks want.
> 
> > I do not think it is a good way to import such applications into the base
> > source tree, at least while there is no appropriate support for syspkgs.
> 
> Why? I agree we don't want to put everything in base. But on a 
> case-by-case basis, I think it's fine if not appropriate to put stuff in 
> base. This seems like a good fit for base.
> 
> It also stays out of the way. It's in libexec, so no one will find it by 
> accident.


Apart from the discussion whether or not we need a *httpd in base at all...

Has this been compared to other light-weight BSD-licensed http servers like
e.g. lighttpd and thttpd?  What are the benefits of bozohttpd over those?

I've been been using thttpd in a number of setups and I like it a lot.
lighttpd is attractive too because of its fastCGI support, although I have
less experience with it (than thttpd).

	Geert