On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 07:50:38AM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 12:19:25PM +0100, Simon Harrison wrote:
> > This is probably more for the portable version. My question is: could
> > we have a plain CGI version as FCGI is a bit harder to configure on
> > Apache.
> > 
> > I know people may scream "but it's sooooo slow!", however I run
> > Mercurial's hgweb on a server and am quite happy with the speed.
> 
> I am not sure this makes much difference, to be honest.  fcgi is configurable
> under Apache.
> 
> I certainly don't want to maintain a plain CGI version in gotwebd in
> -portable, unless it's upstreamed officially.

The original gotweb was a plain cgi program, but that implementation
was deleted long ago and it won't come back. The fcgi approach is worth
it for us even though web-server setup is a bit more complicated.
This is not about speed. Being able to run gotwebd as a daemon allows
for features which are otherwise harder to support.
And having two implementations to maintain would be too much effort.