-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi,
On 26.03.2012 00:29, Adrian Bunk wrote: >>> So having libapache2-mod-php5 as first alternative in the >>> dependencies is exactly correct. >> >> It matches the guidelines, but maybe the guidelines aren't as >> good as they should be. ;) > > Personally I don't think your suggestion makes sense, but the > guidelines are currently being discussed, so discuss it there and > not in bugs for random packages... I do not think I've written anything about programming language dependencies in the packaging guidelines after all. That's probably something which should be addressed on a per-language basis again. Following our (i.e. Apache's) guidelines we appreciate any effort to support web applications in an existing Apache environment. We provide package maintainers a decent library of functions and programs to get things in place. However, I am maintaining Lighttpd as well (Hello Olaf!), thus I'm all open ears to get decent support of alternative web servers in Debian. I was trying to push a web application policy already and I contacted nginx maintainers on that (CC:-ed as well). They all seemed interested to consolidate web application dependencies into a uniform and predictable behavior. My proposal from the packaging guidelines covers web server dependencies in fair way I think. It does not force anyone to install Apache who does not want to, but it recommends packagers to declare a package relationship against a web server. That's a fair trade-off I think, as its fairly straightforward to assume people who install a web application want to run it on a web server. I do not think we need to cope with corner and special cases - there is equivs for that, or the fact the dependency can just be ignored when demoted to a recommends. So, yes, if your web application ships a ready-to-use configuration file for a given web server, it's perfectly legit to recommend its use. So, as a start, web applications should recommend a web server like this if they ship both, an Apache2 configuration file and a Lighttpd configuration file: Recommends: apache2 | lighttpd | httpd Of course, that's not enough to run for a PHP application. I was outlining lots of ways to execute PHP scripts on a web server. I do not see what's so bad to depend on libapache2-mod-php5 or whatever PHP maintainers provide these days. Obviously a web application needs a PHP interpreter at some point and that's a perfect use case for a dependency. That's what they are for. However, I can certainly imagine ways where such a dependency could be satisfied by any web server supporting PHP by one way or another. What about a httpd-php virtual package for example which could be provided by a web server and enables a configuration in the web server ready to execute PHP scripts? For Apache, the libapache2-mod-php5 package could provide httpd-php (among others, including FastCGI and FPM setups), for lighttpd we would only need to set-up a running FastCGI + PHP-CGI environment at postinst time, which is already mostly there, too. Likewise for nginx, I guess. Then, PHP web applications could formulate dependencies like this: Depends: libapache2-mod-php5 | whatever-alternative-php5 | httpd-php Now, people who would like to use Lighttpd instead of the default Apache would only need to do a apt-get install lighttpd the-web-app and the httpd-php configuration package provided by Lighttpd would enable an environment ready to run PHP. Note, my "httpd-programming-language" approach has stronger implications than the traditional "httpd-cgi" virtual packages which traditionally only implied a "CGI capable web server". In my setup, a web server providing it would actually need a working environment with a stable interface, web application package maintainers could rely on. Having that said, you can see on my CC:-orgy this discussion is getting nowhere if we continue to spread it among dozens of people, lists and bugs. Hence, please, let's pick a single list, start over doing a clean proposal and see where things end up. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPb7A/AAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtCeoP/2bbjovSO+pch8eFTndeo8Mj WNDdE2QIpA2wsr86JEHDExb7TvGznDcOyT2tHHT+9n3vSOhPdg5CATDS8lnQzZrS GS8fXfUyPZn1XXcQy6NCobSw3DSdO18MmktqCAYsAmkpJW9GAKjO1mlPaQVTOwiN 7277fTK3Dq4oZmdZ0TlGRiR0tlIjGt6AKnMKUpiXyVCN4wwo+H5vrEHR4dMVswgA 8FSYJmsjK/k2LjxOf2C91jTyq0z5LdBz/gu6gwnZ36Ctskq0TA1zJKkqmFaB3bRA S5BOsVixnJkleuI649mUUqs9ZxKPPWMVNOgJW9FdkHdXqO47u8m/h0qZfBCAZEKM ppsFQbt25EOkI6jDHoR8jYRsqOKWIW4qL6CI2d3nRkYPr3mdDNBcIRm8o2j15ZFv eLTznEyXMmz0bWl7CsBJxOU0QG14ukWfsGsv21outEVONjpZ480YxPqfpv9MZ8Ix sYYHVJwt5K+KJg+5pX6ABkBt3RSpTd+vbZHbk+weqlVrR5O8qM6xWZchKYCsZD51 4xlNNeoVLZsA9YabYLL594PdrFuR17q3AGRVqQQjwvjjlySjPQ8kQbdplTDw6mHg ARdIBfknMVbD/FwetMR6T/OAvMbdfcrCpLuOciiBhloW18Cg6TLfrETbYy/+Nziz i+NVHeR05v09D/Lh9Bqp =VZvv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
