Please extend the requirements section in the Kirby 3 documentation

Dear Kirby team,

on two occasions I together with Sascha spent days to get Kirby 3 running on our servers. Not everybody is using the usual hosting services where every Apache module is loaded by default and every feature is turned on just to prevent support requests.

We ran our own servers in our providers data center and their pros maintain the servers. It is their philosophy to setup web servers as naked as possible so even simple things like Apache’s Rewrite Module is not loaded by default. Another problem occurs yesterday when Kirby 3.2 won’t run on a freshly installed server with all the usual bells and whistles (which was running the prior version fine). The solution was to enable HTTP PATCH requests as mentioned in this forum post.

I know you have lots of things to juggle – but would it be possible to add slowly and over the time mandatory server settings, modules, etc. to the requirements section of the Kirby 3 documentation? Sure Kirby 3 will work on 90% of the usual hosting services but a lot of money gets burned for the rest of us.

PS Another bag of hurt are file and directory ownerships and rights. Not always the user for the Apache server is the same as the external developer who is uploading files with his own user. File and directory rights get mangled all the time and I as the root need clean out the mess once a week. Maybe I am just too dumb or have not found a bullet proof Kirby setup which incorporate several people working on a project.

PSPS Maybe also add the HTTP PATCH request problem to the troubleshooting guide in the error 500 section.

Thanks a lot for all your work, maybe my suggestions help others to save some time.

Cheers, Yves

I get around this by deploying with rSync (which I do in both directions, to sync content down to my local copy if clients change content on the server). A lot of people use Git for deploys too, which might be more appropriate in a team situation.

In this case, git hooks can/should be used to set correct permissions after deployment

@yves I’ve created an issue in the repo.

Any suggestions to improve the docs are better collected there. Here, the stuff is quickly buried and forgotten.

Ah, I didn’t know that you can make improvement suggestions in this way. If I have a rare idea, I’ll try to file an issue in the future. Thanks for taking care of us.

1 Like