On 2006-07-25T00:11+0200 Bastian Venthur wrote: > (1) How many percent of cases use a remote server instead of a local > one? My guess: less than 5% -- should we care of the minority or should > we provide reasonable defaults for the majority of users?
I agree that remote mysql configuration isn't typical. > (2) Is the current behavior really user-friendly? Most users expect > Debian to install everything what's needed to run a package. I have not > seen an error message, warning or something which points me to a missing > sql-server. (Not even when running the mysql-helper script in > /u/s/d/wordpress/expamples) This is not acceptable. It's the most flexible way of doing it. Installation could be made easier with some sort of debconf script, though I'm allergic to that. Though if you show me a patch, I'll consider it. > [(3) Does wordpress really work with a remote sql-server? E.g., have you > tested it?] > I think it's not acceptable to support strange use-cases over the > average one. Wordpress explicitly depends on a mysql-server so wordpress > should depend on it. Experienced users using a remote sql-server should > know how to deal with this issue. This problem came up a while back. LAMP (web) apps in Debian are difficult. There are different Apaches(httpds), *different DBMS* and different PHPs. I wish it could be easier myself. :) There is some work on providing an abstraction on the webapps-common-discuss and debian-webapps. I've tried their scripts a while back, but I found them buggy and unsatisfactory. I don't like the two package idea for one app btw. Thanks for your concern, though I'll mark this bug as minor and wontfix. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
