Subject: Deployment questions

From: "Lydia Sobot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2025 22:56:57 +0200

Hi, I was wondering the following 2 things when reading through the README to deploy scooper on my system:
1) what was the reasoning behind vendoring SQLite when that means that
the vendored version will lag behind the system version used by
litterbox? Is it still necessary?
2) does slowcgi from OpenBSD base not work for some reason given the
specific chroot and socket setup required given that httpd runs under
www:www and litterbox usually runs under your own user?

Thanks in advance and loving your software ❤️

P.S.: it might be useful to cut a release with the manpage updates for
replacing catsit with kitd to avoid package maintainers having to
backport a patch for that

---

From: june <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2025 16:20:22 -0400

> On Oct 1, 2025, at 16:56, Lydia Sobot <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I decided to vendor sqlite so that scooper could consistently be
statically linked. I think FreeBSD stopped building libsqlite3.a
in their port and I cared about that at the time.

> www:www and litterbox usually runs under your own user?

yeah, that's why it's more convenient to run it with kfcgi(8).

> backport a patch for that

yeah a lot of my projects could probably use new releases... I'll
get around to them eventually maybe.

---

From: "Lydia Sobot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2025 01:18:05 +0200

> in their port and I cared about that at the time.
Makes perfect sense, however then maybe it should be bumped to the
latest release of SQLite?

> yeah, that's why it's more convenient to run it with kfcgi(8).
Fair, but considering that unless I missed something obvious, slowcgi(8)
also has the ability to switch to a different user and put the socket
and chroot at an arbitrary location, just like kfcgi(8), so are there
other subtleties that make it break with slowcgi(8)?

> get around to them eventually maybe.
Great~

---

From: june <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 12:32:53 -0400

> On Oct 5, 2025, at 19:18, Lydia Sobot <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

yeah I guess so.

> other subtleties that make it break with slowcgi(8)?

as far as I know it would work fine with slowcgi(8) if it was
configured properly. I just haven't run it that way.