Quoting Brian May (2014-09-23 08:02:22) > On 29 July 2014 19:04, Jeroen Dekkers <[1]jer...@dekkers.ch> wrote: > > As far as I can see this is a bug in the apache2 packaging. The httpd > virtual package should be provided by the apache2 package, not the > apache2-bin package, because the apache2-bin package doesn't provide a > working webserver. Bug report I just filed about this: > [2]https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=756361 > > Ok, this bug was fixed, leading me to re-investigate this again. > > > It isn't very easy to specify what httpd-wsgi should mean, because > some WSGI servers are full webservers with WSGI support such as apache > and others like gunicorn are only supposed to run behind a proxying > server such as apache or nginx (similar to for example php-fpm). > > So as far as I can see, the correct dependency should be: > > Depends: libapache2-mod-wsgi | httpd-wsgi, apache2 | httpd > > So it also possible to run other webservers. > > I just noticed there is still another potential problem. > With the above, either libapache2-mod-wsgi (Python2 only) > or libapache2-mod-wsgi-py3 (Python3 only) will satisfy the depends. > Does this mean I should also depend on both python-* and python3-*? Even > though only one will ever get used? > What happens if the package only has Python2 or Python3 support, not both? > To me, it is starting to look like we need two virtual packages for > httpd-wsgi - one for Python2, and one for Python3. Then I can explicitly > set use one my Depends (e.g. Python3), and not worry about supporting the > other Python version (e.g. Python2).
Isn't that an implementation detail? Is Python version relevant for the on-the-wire WSGI protocol? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
