Re: Puppet version bump
On 02/05/2013 06:45 PM, Ryan Tandy wrote: John Moser john.r.moser at gmail.com writes: 2. Convince Ubuntu to put the newest Puppetmaster in Backports. I am not advocating this either. Slightly off-topic, but FWIW I would be happy to see raring's puppet (whatever version that ends up being) in precise-backports. lucid-backports has puppet 2.7 and that made my life a LOT easier since my puppetmaster runs precise and I am using some recent modules. Having backports available but not installed by default is really quite nice. Furthermore it's quite likely that at some point I'll have some clients running a newer Ubuntu than the puppetmaster, and it would be great to be able to support it just by upgrading puppetmaster to a backports version. If someone does the testing, I'm happy to keep pushing puppet updates to the backports repo. You can use the requestbackport script in ubuntu-dev-tools to file the request and list the testing needed. Thanks, Micah -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: gfortran-4.6 dependency problems
On 11/02/2012 04:45 PM, JC Lawrence wrote: The current version of gfortran in 12.0 LTS depends on gfortran-4.6, which in turn depends on GCC-4.6 (=, not =), which can't be satisfied as the only GCC release in 12.0 is 4.6.1-2. Is this likely to be resolved soon? I need gfortran and am having the very devil of a time building GCC and thus gfortran from sources (arghh!). # apt-get install gfortran Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies: gfortran : Depends: gfortran-4.6 (= 4.6.1-1) but it is not going to be installed # apt-get install gfortran-4.6 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies: gfortran-4.6 : Depends: gcc-4.6-base (= 4.6.1-9ubuntu3) but 4.6.3-1ubuntu5 is to be installed Depends: gcc-4.6 (= 4.6.1-9ubuntu3) but 4.6.3-1ubuntu5 is to be installed Depends: libgfortran3 (= 4.6.1-9ubuntu3) but it is not going to be installed E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. # apt-cache show gcc Package: gcc Priority: optional Section: devel Installed-Size: 64 Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Original-Maintainer: Debian GCC Maintainers debian-...@lists.debian.org Architecture: amd64 Source: gcc-defaults (1.107ubuntu5) Version: 4:4.6.1-2ubuntu5 Provides: c-compiler Depends: cpp (= 4:4.6.1-2ubuntu5), gcc-4.6 (= 4.6.1-1) Recommends: libc6-dev | libc-dev Suggests: gcc-multilib, make, manpages-dev, autoconf, automake1.9, libtool, flex, bison, gdb, gcc-docConflicts: gcc-doc ( 1:2.95.3) Filename: pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/gcc_4.6.1-2ubuntu5_amd64.deb Size: 5110 MD5sum: 3c7599c5c4ff882a1914af6b9bb9b4d1 SHA1: 26f17c03232d437703276e7a8929c410aaa8f215 SHA256: 2284f6c7ca58020dc27809a77df2faa4afa3798caa16d9a9e13d48ca58e4f8a2 Description-en: GNU C compiler This is the GNU C compiler, a fairly portable optimizing compiler for C. . This is a dependency package providing the default GNU C compiler. Description-md5: c7efd71c7c651a9ac8b2adf36b137790 Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug Build-Essential: yes Origin: Ubuntu Supported: 18m Task: ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-usb, edubuntu-desktop, edubuntu-usb, xubuntu-desktop, mythbuntu-backend-master, mythbuntu-backend-slave, mythbuntu-desktop, mythbuntu-frontend -- JCL It seems like you're not using an up-to-date mirror. From my precise system: apt-cache show gfortran | grep Ver Version: 4:4.6.3-1ubuntu5 apt-cache show gfortran | grep Depen Depends: cpp (= 4:4.6.3-1ubuntu5), gcc (= 4:4.6.3-1ubuntu5), gfortran-4.6 (= 4.6.3-1~) Micah -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Fix released before Fix committed?
On 03/20/2012 08:31 AM, Andreas Hasenack wrote: I don't get this: andreas@nsn7:~/bzr/landscape-client$ bzr branch ubuntu:landscape-client landscape-client-12.04-0ubuntu1 Most recent Ubuntu version: 12.04-0ubuntu1 Packaging branch version: 11.07.1.1-0ubuntu2 Packaging branch status: OUT-OF-DATE Branched 40 revisions. andreas@nsn7:~/bzr/landscape-client$ How come the package be in the archive already, but the branch is not committed? Please see this Wiki page [1] for an explanation of Ubuntu bug statuses. Fix Committed in Ubuntu has nothing to do with branches, but availability in an archive. Thanks, MIcah [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Status -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: 12.04 OpenSSL Package Question
On 02/13/2012 08:19 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Chris Woollard's message of Mon Feb 13 04:31:11 -0800 2012: I am sure that this can be answered very quickly. I was browsing the list of packages in 12.04 at http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/allpackages?format=txt.gz I noticed that the openssl packages are only at version 1.0.0e-3ubuntu1 - openssl (1.0.0e-3ubuntu1) Secure Socket Layer (SSL) binary and related cryptographic tools Yet when I was browsing the Debian packages at http://packages.debian.org/testing/allpackages?format=txt.gz The version is openssl (1.0.0g-1) - openssl (1.0.0g-1) Secure Socket Layer (SSL) binary and related cryptographic tools Is there any reason for this discrepancy? I guess that this could be as simple as that was the version when the last sync was made, but I thought I would check anyway. Yes, precise in particular only imported automatically from testing. 1.0.0-g-1 entered testing on January 21, several days after DebianImportFreeze. Even then, it needs a manual merge because we have Ubuntu delta to preserve/evaluate. I'm sure somebody will evaluate merging it soon. This was actually already merged this morning. Thanks, Micah -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: wine on precise
On 12/19/2011 01:49 PM, Kai Mast wrote: Hey guys, do the wine-packages on precise (64bit) still work for anyone? seems like the dependencies broke completetly with the move to multiarch... Please see: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2011-October/034279.html Thanks, Micah -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Brainstorming for UDS-P
On 09/23/2011 03:56 PM, Allison Randal wrote: Hi all, While we're all in the final preparations for Oneiric, it's round about that time in the cycle to start thinking about plans for the next cycle. What's on your mind? Allison ubuntu-restricted-extras Most of the stuff in ubuntu-restricted-extras is either not restricted or in partner now. Perhaps this should be broken out into ubuntu-extras and ubuntu-restricted-extras? Micah -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Brainstorming for UDS-P
On 10/10/2011 03:31 PM, Colin Watson wrote: On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 03:03:13PM -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: ubuntu-restricted-extras Most of the stuff in ubuntu-restricted-extras is either not restricted or in partner now. Perhaps this should be broken out into ubuntu-extras and ubuntu-restricted-extras? Partner is often more restricted than restricted; I think in this case we should think of restricted as having its dictionary meaning, rather than identifying it with the (arguably misnamed) component. Sorry, I wasn't suggesting the Partner stuff be moved from restricted. Perhaps there should be an ubuntu-partner-extras recommended by ubuntu-restricted-extras to clarify? Micah -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fcron
On 08/22/2011 01:17 AM, Steven Sroka wrote: On 22 August 2011 00:21, Jeremy Bicha jer...@bicha.net wrote: On 22 August 2011 00:06, Steven Sroka sroka.ste...@gmail.com wrote: Can I request that fcron is updated in the universe repo? The version there is over 3 years old. The version listed on the fcron homepage [0] is from April 5th of last year. Actually, fcron was removed from Debian. See the bug report: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=636235 So this isn't a simple software upgrade as there were bugs that weren't able to be fixed by the Debian maintainer. Upstream isn't really actively developing it either. I spoke to the author of fcron and he is still developing it. If there were problems would it not be wise to either try the newest version or drop it from the universe repo all together since it is still there? If it's not updated before release, we should drop it. However, as Ubuntu doesn't have maintainers, anyone can update this. At this point it would need a feature freeze exception, but I think that should be easy enough to get. If someone would like to prepare an updated package for 3.0.6, I'm happy to sponsor it once the freeze exception is granted. Please use Bug #591813 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/591813 for preparing the update. Thanks, Micah -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Firefox 5+ and 10.04/10.10 (was: Re: Firefox 5, reach 11.04?)
On 06/23/2011 07:08 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: This raise up a good question. Since firefox 4 has reached is EOL [1] and there won't be any additional security update, what about the ubuntu LTS releases? We cannot have an LTS release without a supported firefox version. IMAO, FTW firefox major updates should be backported to every lts release. Ubuntu 12.04 will soffer by this problem. (I leave the question about plugins not supported or not upgraded soon to the mozilla developers :)) [1] http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse_thread/thread/c6bfb8eb74bc0a04/7a6cdf12dc5db986 Just my 0.02 $ Gianfranco Currently 3.6.x is supported upstream, so Lucid and Maverick will continue to get updates. Currently, we are planning to migrate 10.04 and 10.10 to the rapid release cycle when 3.6.x reaches EOL. There is some discussion upstream about a distro supported Firefox LTS and we will keep an eye on those developments. Be assured that we intend to provide a secure browsing experience for the LTS and all the stable releases. Thank you, Micah Gersten Ubuntu Security Team -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Firefox 5, reach 11.04?
On 06/23/2011 12:00 AM, Chris Jones wrote: First off, my apologies if someone has asked this already, but I've only been skimming over the mailing list lately. Simple question, will Firefox 5 reach Natty 11.04? Or will any releases part of the new rapid release cycle from Mozilla be held off until 11.10? Regards Chris Jones It's already in natty-updates and natty-security. Thanks, Micah -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: More LiveCD space optimizations
On 10/08/2010 04:54 AM, Matthias Klose wrote: [ compression related discussion removed ] So maybe we can save some MB with better compression, but we can save more by not including files at all. Of course this requires inspection of the packages included on the liveCD. In the past we did identify some issues and did add some diagnostics to the live CD build logs [1]. Of course you can't run anything and lengthen the live CD build, but some additional diagnostics maybe could be run. In the past we did see wasted space: snip / - firefox and xulrunner shipping duplicate .js files Well, Firefox is no longer built on top of xulrunner, so this is necessary, especially with the PGO optimizations if we can get them. If webkit has sufficient accessibility and we can port yelp to webkit, we can drop xulrunner from the CD. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Mainstream Developers Repository
Actually FileZilla and Deluge are great candidates for backports and just need a bug filed against the appropriate backports project. There was some discussion at UDS about increasing the usage of backports for these types of applications so people can get the latest versions. Thanks, Micah On 10/30/2010 03:43 PM, Mohammed Amine IL Idrissi wrote: Assalam alaikum Usama, The average user (i.e the group of users we're targeting) doesn't care about what version of software X he is running, as long as it works. For that reason, new versions of software will not land in the Ubuntu main repositories. Furthermore, these new versions can also not land in ubuntu-backports. If you want a (simple) desktop application to have an updated version in backports, you should file a bug for requesting it. You can find more information at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports. Hope I've been useful :) Mohamed Amine IL Idrissi On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Usama Akkad uahe...@gmail.com wrote: Wa alaikum alsalam, Bilal this is different from backports. for example Filezilla and Deluge have no problem have more recent release on windows than Linux. You already trust the developers of such applications. Why not help them reach the users directly under your supervision as Ubuntu. You might say any one can create such a repo. Yes but it would hardly be in the Ubuntu way. I'm not talking about packages that might break the system, like gnome or Xorg. It's just some application that you might get from developer website to download and run instantly. في Thu، 28-10-2010 عند 08:34 +0300 ، كتب Bilal Akhtar: Assalam alaikum Usama, This is a good idea. But I think backports and GetDeb [1] are implementing something that is close to this? [1] http://www.getdeb.net/ Bilal Akhtar. On 10/28/2010 07:02 AM, Usama Akkad wrote: Hi, I would like to know your opinion on an Idea of having (Mainstream Developers Repository) please read the draft wiki page on this subject https://wiki.ubuntu.com/damascene/Decentralized%20Ubuntu%20Repository Sometimes user need to get the latest version of a software but he/she will have to add every Launchpad PPA manually. Regards, Usama Akkad https://launchpad.net/~damascene -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Firefox profiles on a tmpfs (ramdisk)?
On 10/24/2010 10:12 AM, Jouko Orava wrote: Hello, For a couple of years now I've kept my active Firefox profiles on a tmpfs (mounted size=128M,mode=01777,atime,auto,rw,nodev,noexec,nosuid) on both my desktop workstation and on my minilaptop. It feels subjectively much snappier, but I haven't actually measured the difference. On the laptop, it also reduces disk usage, which is very nice. The profiles are unpacked from a tarball when firefox starts, and tarred back when firefox closes, using two script hooks in run-mozilla.sh: [ -x /usr/lib/firefox-profiles.sh ] /usr/lib/firefox-profiles.sh load just before the final if clause, and [ -x /usr/lib/firefox-profiles.sh ] /usr/lib/firefox-profiles.sh save just after the final if clause. The script itself is very careful to not fail (and not to overwrite the old tarball unless the new one is ok), and has never failed yet, even when Firefox crashes. I tried to get something similar upstream earlier: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=576707 but it was rejected for complexity reasons. If the Ubuntu Mozilla team were to add the script hook into Firefox -- noting that it does not change the behaviour by default, only if the hooked script actually exists --, I could create an Ubuntu package, which when installed creates the necessary tmpfs, profile tarballs, and modifications to the profile configs to limit the profile size (so that the tmpfs does not grow too large). All of the changes are also safely undoable if the package is removed. Each user can also choose which profiles, if any, are kept on the tmpfs. The question is, are Ubuntu developers interested in this? It does add changes to Firefox run-mozilla.sh script, which has to be maintained. (However, run-mozilla.sh does not seem to change often.) If there is interest for this, I could upload or e-mail the scripts (/usr/lib/firefox-profiles.sh for Firefox, and proposed maintainer scripts for a package setting up the tmpfs and moving Firefox profiles to a tmpfs.) (There are also some user interface related issues to think about, too. For example, should the package move all profiles to tmpfs by default, or should it have a GUI prompting the user on the next Firefox startup? Is there need for a migration tool, GUI or commandline, so that users could choose afterwards?) At the minimum, adding the script hook into run-mozilla.sh makes the testing much easier. Now, I need to modify run-mozilla.sh whenever Firefox is updated, which is a bit of a chore.. I'd be very happy to provide further information for those interested. Cheers, Jouko Orava If upstream rejected for complexity, we won't be able to take it either. We will be discussing increasing the time between session saves in Firefox though. Thanks, Micah Gersten Ubuntu Mozilla Team -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: firestarter
On 08/26/2010 10:18 PM, Jim Kielman wrote: Opps, I sent this earlier from the wrong email address. The only update, was to make it so that it will build with new gtk libraries, and other changes that allow it to work with maverick. Firestarter has served well over it's lifetime, but with nobody actually maintaining the program, it's time to put it to rest. We have replacements in ufw and gfw, so there really is no need for it to still be in the repositories. As long as it's maintained in a working state in Debian, why remove it? -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Reintroducing packages throught -proposed
On 08/15/2010 10:48 AM, Lionel Le Folgoc wrote: On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 05:07:40PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: Hello, Benjamin Drung [2010-08-14 20:51 +0200]: I am asking this question, because libstdc++5 was removed from karmic and it was recently reintroduces in maverick. I wasn't really happy about libstdc++ returning to maverick, but it kind of just happened through autosyncs. AFAIK (and according to LP), it wasn't autosynced but instead reintroduced manually by a developer using syncpackage (that's unrelated, but it would be really useful to know once and for all whether we should use this script or request syncs the old way…). Regards, Lionel I brought up the issue as soon as I saw it back in the archive and basically the main reason it was dropped from Ubuntu was lack of support upstream [1]. It was dropped from Debian because it was unbuildable [0]. Debian seems to be supporting it again and building it with gcc-4.1, so it was put back in. Micah [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=536776 [1] https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-3.3/+bug/418372 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Apache2 in default Ubuntu install
On 08/13/2010 02:06 AM, Harry Strongburg wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Martin Pittmartin.p...@ubuntu.com wrote: php5 installs everything related to PHP, which includes the web server module. If you only want the command line interpreter, but none of the web stuff, just install php5-cli instead. But I dare to claim that most people who want PHP actually want it as a web server platform. Apache is not the only httpd in the world that supports PHP-CGI! PHP can be run with most httpds. Bundling the php5 package to install Apache is like selling T-Shirts along with jeans, but packaged together. There's a large chance that the end-user will use the pants that were sold with the T-Shirt, but why package them together? The end-user should have more options, not less! (It's a bad example, but it's all I can think of at 4 AM :)) Which would probably explain why php5-cgi doesn't pull in apache: apt-cache show php5-cgi Package: php5-cgi snip Depends: libbz2-1.0, libc6 (= 2.11), libcomerr2 (= 1.01), libdb4.8, libgssapi-krb5-2 (= 1.6.dfsg.2), libk5crypto3 (= 1.6.dfsg.2), libkrb5-3 (= 1.6.dfsg.2), libpcre3 (= 7.7), libssl0.9.8 (= 0.9.8k-1), libxml2 (= 2.7.4), zlib1g (= 1:1.1.4), mime-support, php5-common (= 5.3.2-1ubuntu4.2), libmagic1, ucf, tzdata Suggests: php-pear snip Description: server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language (CGI binary) This package provides the /usr/lib/cgi-bin/php5 CGI interpreter built for use in Apache 2 with mod_actions, or any other CGI httpd that supports a similar mechanism. Note that MOST Apache users probably want the libapache2-mod-php5 package. The following extensions are built in: bcmath bz2 calendar Core ctype date dba dom ereg exif fileinfo filter ftp gettext hash iconv json libxml mbstring mhash openssl pcre Phar posix Reflection session shmop SimpleXML soap sockets SPL standard sysvmsg sysvsem sysvshm tokenizer wddx xml xmlreader xmlwriter zip zlib. . PHP5 is an HTML-embedded scripting language. Much of its syntax is borrowed from C, Java and Perl with a couple of unique PHP-specific features thrown in. The goal of the language is to allow web developers to write dynamically generated pages quickly. This version of PHP5 was built with the Suhosin patch. snip -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Apache2 in default Ubuntu install
Ccing the list back On 08/13/2010 02:31 AM, Harry Strongburg wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Micah Gersten mic...@ubuntu.com mailto:mic...@ubuntu.com wrote: On 08/13/2010 02:06 AM, Harry Strongburg wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Martin Pittmartin.p...@ubuntu.com mailto:martin.p...@ubuntu.com wrote: php5 installs everything related to PHP, which includes the web server module. If you only want the command line interpreter, but none of the web stuff, just install php5-cli instead. But I dare to claim that most people who want PHP actually want it as a web server platform. Apache is not the only httpd in the world that supports PHP-CGI! PHP can be run with most httpds. Bundling the php5 package to install Apache is like selling T-Shirts along with jeans, but packaged together. There's a large chance that the end-user will use the pants that were sold with the T-Shirt, but why package them together? The end-user should have more options, not less! (It's a bad example, but it's all I can think of at 4 AM :)) Which would probably explain why php5-cgi doesn't pull in apache: Still doesn't change the fact that the package php5, which most users will install (and includes both -cli and -cgi), is forcing an Apache install. Call me a lighttpd fanboy, but I just fail to see why Apache is a dependency for php5, because it is not. It's the most popular httpd, but that is no reason to make it a dependency on the php5 package. At least give the user at time of install the option to chose what httpd they want, if any? More is always better than none or limited choices. Because sensible defaults are necessary. You get your choice of Apache or something else. If you selected another httpd on install and php5 dragged in apache, that might qualify as a bug. If you selected nothing, well you get the sensible default which is Apache. apt-cache show php5 Package: php5 snip Depends: libapache2-mod-php5 (= 5.3.2-1ubuntu4.2) | libapache2-mod-php5filter (= 5.3.2-1ubuntu4.2) | php5-cgi (= 5.3.2-1ubuntu4.2), php5-common (= 5.3.2-1ubuntu4.2) snip Description: server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language (metapackage) This package is a metapackage that, when installed, guarantees that you have at least one of the three server-side versions of the PHP5 interpreter installed. Removing this package won't remove PHP5 from your system, however it may remove other packages that depend on this one. snip -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
