Bryan Steele, 29 Mar 2015 11:18: > > sometimes i just want a vanilla nginx, just like > > upstream, so i am not going to be bitten by this > > when i deploy stuff to linux servers... > > actually, i think it should be the other way > > around, nginx-chroot being a flavor, and not > > vice versa.... > > > > -f > > -- > > i'm not religious. god willing, i never will be. > > The chroot functionality is a sane default for a webserver, and people > upgrading from the former base nginx to ports nginx might be suprised > that it is no longer doing so. I only agree that documentation could be > improved here.
the lack of documentation, i am sure is an oversight and easily fixable. and i have no beef with the chroot patch. it is in fact a nice addition, but it is not part of nginx itself, and i think it's wrong to silently add features to well known software in the ports, no matter how useful the added functionality is. when nginx was part of base, it was expected that it would receive all kinds of local patches. but just as openbsd apache is not apache anymore, this nginx is also not nginx anymore. i would like a vanilla, upstream nginx please in the ports, just like there is apache2, postfix, etc. i dont find that unreasonable. -f -- experience is nothing but a lot of mistakes.
