Serendipity Forums

Hi!

Well, we'd need all kind of server configurations and test all possible permutations:

1. Basic installation
1.1 Shared install
1.2 Base domain install
1.3 Subdomain install
1.4 Install on both subdomain and basedomain
1.5 Shared install on basedomain, normal install on subdomain
1.6 Shared install on subdomain, normal install on basedomain

2. Server configuration
2.1 Apache w/ mod_php
2.2 nginx
2.3 lighttpd
2.4 Apache w/ fcgi

3. Subdomain configuration
3.1 mod_rewrite VHosts
3.2 DOCUMENT_ROOT Vhosts

So that would be 6*4*2 installations = 48 different setup possibilities.



Regards,
Garvin

Let rearrange those a little:

garvinhicking wrote:1. Server configuration
1.1 Apache w/ mod_php
1.2 nginx
1.3 lighttpd
1.4 Apache w/ fcgi

Theoretically, all those could run on the same test server. I've never installed nginx, but l think lighttpd even uses the same /var/www/ as Apache on Ubuntu. That could actually save some installations. Not sure about running Apache with mod_php and fcgi at the same time, though. I've never gotten around to run fcgi locally.

garvinhicking wrote:2. Subdomain configuration
2.1 mod_rewrite VHosts
2.2 DOCUMENT_ROOT Vhosts

Which one's the one Uberspace uses? 2.1?

garvinhicking wrote:3. Basic installation
3.1 Shared install
3.2 Base domain install
3.3 Subdomain install
3.4 Install on both subdomain and basedomain
3.5 Shared install on basedomain, normal install on subdomain
3.6 Shared install on subdomain, normal install on basedomain

I've already done 3.4 on Apache/fcgi/Uberspace, I could do 3.3 as well on my second Uberspace. Did you install on base first in your test Uberspace? That would be 3.2 as well – 3 down, 45 to go.

It's probably not a good idea to let people test this on their hosting accounts. It would be better to have a root server on which we can set up all of these. Do we need an actual root server or would an old laptop running on Ubuntu suffice?

YL

Hi!

Sure...it could be eased up a little, but: Is this really worth our time? I think the chances of the patche breaking stuff are quite slim; if problems arose, we should IMHO get them from users upgrading to 1.7. But people who upgrade a 1.6 version do not expect something to break, which is why I don't really want this in a "stable" version line...

Regards,
Garvin

garvinhicking wrote:I think the chances of the patche breaking stuff are quite slim; if problems arose, we should IMHO get them from users upgrading to 1.7.

Erm, okay … (You do realize this is a confusing thing to hear from you, right? )

YL