On 01/07/2012 12:33 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> On 01/06/2012 04:34 PM, Neil Williams wrote: >> >>> It depends which is more common >>> >> I don't see why we would steer on the direction of the most common >> thing only. What we want is something that works all the time, no? >> If we remote the web server dependency, it works all the time. >> > No, it then breaks if you don't install the package by hand. >
That's not what my proposal *was* (I already given up) about. It would break if you don't install the package by hand *AND* if you have disabled automatic install of Recommends:. >> Don't you think that someone who can setup a PHP app, also knows >> that it will need apache, and that apt-get install apache2 is quite an >> easy thing to do? >> > That argument can be taken ad absurbum quite easily. Don't you know > that ssh requires libssl0.9.8g? Everybody knows that, you should just > grab it by hand. > You are talking about strict, mandatory, dependencies, for a library that would anyway never by a problem on your server. That is totally different. >>> How many of these packages do clever things upon installation like >>> setup their own virtual hosts or similar? >>> >> None, because that's forbidden by the Debian policy. >> > Where is that forbidden? > Sorry, I don't want to spend the time to search and point at it. But I'm quite sure of what I'm saying. What packages do, is install an Alias directive, but *never* a VirtualHost. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f0732b7.2020...@debian.org
