On 01/09/2012 04:08 PM, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Leaving aside use cases, workarounds (ugly hacks, I would call them), etc...
I personally believe those dependencies are incorrect. In the past, when I
had the chance, I often explained to the corresponding maintainer why they
were incorrect
On 01/10/2012 06:03 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
[Reply-To: set to -publicity]
On Lu, 09 ian 12, 14:39:03, Wookey wrote:
And equivs is an incredicbly-useful well-kept secret (of which Debian
and GNU/Linux has many). Any suggestions for making it better known
would be good. This disucssion
On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 23:49, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 01/06/2012 02:46 PM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
live with the idea that Debian must be usable for everyone in the
world (which is impossible, IMHO) but that's the life.
at least debian is equally bad for everyone/everything, having almost
On 2012-01-10, Milan P. Stanic m...@arvanta.net wrote:
Ubuntu, which was intended for desktop already have server variant and I
can't see a reason why Debian couldn't have something like that, i.e.
variant for unexperienced users and another one for servers.
There is no server variant, or at
Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
The issue is that most PHP packages in Debian have dependencies on web
servers, most of the time with something like this:
Depends: apache2 | httpd, libapache2-mod-php5 | php5-cgi
Leaving aside use cases, workarounds (ugly hacks, I would call them), etc...
I
+++ Steve Langasek [2012-01-08 05:23 +0100]:
It would be very wrong to bypass the dependency system in the archive on
account of the filesystem cross-mount tricks described here. Using equivs
locally is the *right* solution for such cases.
I think steve is right here, even though it is
On 01/07/2012 05:11 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Having, say, mediawiki, ask using debconf if you would like a vhost set
up with the host name wiki.$domain would be completely sane, IMO. If
you don't want it, just tell the config script no.
i thouhg it would be implicitly clear that if the user
[Reply-To: set to -publicity]
On Lu, 09 ian 12, 14:39:03, Wookey wrote:
And equivs is an incredicbly-useful well-kept secret (of which Debian
and GNU/Linux has many). Any suggestions for making it better known
would be good. This disucssion has no doubt helped a little.
Hi -publicity,
This
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 08:20:23PM +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
On 06.01.2012 19:09, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I don't think this would be an issue for anyone, and I wouldn't see any
argument against it (I'm sure someone in this list will though... :) ).
Your thoughts?
The overall benefit over our
On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 10:38:04 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I agree we should advertise equivs more as it is the most flexible
solution. But until it is discoverable from (not to mention integrated
with) package managers, I doubt we can make a dent in the number of
people who will get
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 08:20:23PM +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
The overall benefit over our virtual package system, possibly in
addition to equivs seems flexible enough. Why do we tailor incomplete
special case solutions instead of recommending equivs more popularly?
I say incomplete, because
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 03:19:21PM +0100, Mathieu Parent wrote:
Because ruby has an embedded web server (webrick), so it doesn't
require one (but it is better for performance and more).
PHP also got one recently.
Bastian
--
Change is the essential process of all existence.
--
On Sat, Jan 07, 2012 at 12:34:24PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 03:19:21PM +0100, Mathieu Parent wrote:
Because ruby has an embedded web server (webrick), so it doesn't
require one (but it is better for performance and more).
PHP also got one recently.
Right. But
]] Daniel Baumann
it's not policy incompliant if e.g. php5 would install
/etc/apache2/sites-enabled/whatever containing a virtualhost definition.
the reason why nobody would do that, is, that it's just wrong and
unreasonable to do such a thing (where e.g. aliases and directory
directives
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
]] Daniel Baumann
it's not policy incompliant if e.g. php5 would install
/etc/apache2/sites-enabled/whatever containing a virtualhost
definition. the reason why nobody would do that, is, that it's just
wrong and unreasonable to do such a thing (where
On 12-01-07 at 09:15am, Russ Allbery wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
]] Daniel Baumann
it's not policy incompliant if e.g. php5 would install
/etc/apache2/sites-enabled/whatever containing a virtualhost
definition. the reason why nobody would do that, is, that it's
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
On 12-01-07 at 09:15am, Russ Allbery wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
]] Daniel Baumann
it's not policy incompliant if e.g. php5 would install
/etc/apache2/sites-enabled/whatever containing a virtualhost
definition. the reason why
On 12-01-07 at 09:42am, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
On 12-01-07 at 09:15am, Russ Allbery wrote:
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
]] Daniel Baumann
it's not policy incompliant if e.g. php5 would install
/etc/apache2/sites-enabled/whatever
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
On 12-01-07 at 09:42am, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm not sure that it really violates Policy, mostly because we don't
have any Policy guidance about web applications at all right now. But
I think it's fairly obvious that it's not a sane thing to do to camp
On 12-01-07 at 11:33am, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard d...@jones.dk writes:
On 12-01-07 at 09:42am, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm not sure that it really violates Policy, mostly because we
don't have any Policy guidance about web applications at all right
now. But I think it's
Hi,
It's been a long time I'm thinking about writing a message like this one
to -devel. I hope I can convince others.
In many large installations, web servers are providing spaces in a chroot.
Myself, I use sbox (which I rewrote for a big part) to provide this to
my customers, so that each site
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:56:37 +0800
Thomas Goirand tho...@goirand.fr wrote:
The issue is that most PHP packages in Debian have dependencies on web
servers, most of the time with something like this:
Depends: apache2 | httpd, libapache2-mod-php5 | php5-cgi
Sounds like the situation for which
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 16:34, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:56:37 +0800
Thomas Goirand tho...@goirand.fr wrote:
The issue is that most PHP packages in Debian have dependencies on web
servers, most of the time with something like this:
Depends: apache2 |
Thomas Goirand, 2012-01-06 08:56+0100:
Also, it's very surprising to see that we have dependencies for web
servers, but most of the time *not* for mysql-server, which is as much
needed in order to run these applications. I really don't understand the
logic behind this.
The database server
On 01/06/2012 08:56 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
The issue is that most PHP packages in Debian have dependencies on web
servers, most of the time with something like this:
Depends: apache2 | httpd, libapache2-mod-php5 | php5-cgi
I would not say that your chroot setup is typical. Or common.
I
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.
Don't you think that
On 01/06/2012 05:12 PM, Miroslav Suchy wrote:
On 01/06/2012 08:56 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
The issue is that most PHP packages in Debian have dependencies on web
servers, most of the time with something like this:
Depends: apache2 | httpd, libapache2-mod-php5 | php5-cgi
I would not say
On 01/06/2012 05:12 PM, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
Thomas Goirand, 2012-01-06 08:56+0100:
Also, it's very surprising to see that we have dependencies for web
servers, but most of the time *not* for mysql-server, which is as much
needed in order to run these applications. I really don't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 06.01.2012 10:12, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
The database server used by a given piece of software can be installed
on another system. The Web server cannot.
Actually it can. Many modern webservers, including one I am maintaining
support CGI
Le 06/01/2012 08:56, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
The issue is that most PHP packages in Debian have dependencies on web
servers, most of the time with something like this:
Depends: apache2 | httpd, libapache2-mod-php5 | php5-cgi
For info, web apps which are not in PHP like redmine which use
Thomas Goirand, 2012-01-06 18:06:35 +0800 :
[...]
That's what I don't get! I think using a remote MySQL is as uncommon
as a chrooted CGI environment.
From what I've seen of various clients' systems, it isn't. The web
server is often isolated not in a chroot but in a separate host (whether
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06.01.2012 12:07, Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
For info, web apps which are not in PHP like redmine which use Ruby
doesn't depend of apache2 or any other http server.
So why should we depends of it for PHP apps only ?
And as a third example: trac is
On 01/06/2012 07:07 PM, Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
Le 06/01/2012 08:56, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
The issue is that most PHP packages in Debian have dependencies on web
servers, most of the time with something like this:
Depends: apache2 | httpd, libapache2-mod-php5 | php5-cgi
For info, web
On 01/06/2012 06:47 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 06:15:36PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Then please explain to me how I can install let's say wordpress, in a
chroot (and of course, without apache), without doing some hacks! Yes,
wordpress is FORCING ME to install
On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 20:45, Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
This is why I think the solution of moving apache2 | http as
a Recommends: is a good compromise.
Never mind, it seems there's more people against my idea
than some thinking it was a smart one, so I'll hack with equivs
(which I didn't
2012/1/6 Olivier Bonvalet debian.l...@daevel.fr:
Le 06/01/2012 08:56, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
For info, web apps which are not in PHP like redmine which use Ruby doesn't
depend of apache2 or any other http server.
So why should we depends of it for PHP apps only ?
Because ruby has an
On 06/01/2012 15:19, Mathieu Parent wrote:
2012/1/6 Olivier Bonvalet debian.l...@daevel.fr:
Le 06/01/2012 08:56, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
For info, web apps which are not in PHP like redmine which use Ruby doesn't
depend of apache2 or any other http server.
So why should we depends of it for
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 10:12:15AM +0100, Miroslav Suchy wrote:
Depends: apache2 | httpd, libapache2-mod-php5 | php5-cgi
I would not say that your chroot setup is typical. Or common. I would
suggest creating your own empty apache2 package with version , which you
will install in this
]] Thomas Goirand
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
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
It seems to be that I wasn't the only one with the issue. Bug #627213
shows how messy things can be.
So, what about Debian providing a dummy package that would provide
httpd, so that it would solve the issue?
It'd be something like this:
Package: dummy-httpd
Provides: httpd, httpd-fastcgi,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06.01.2012 19:09, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I don't think this would be an issue for anyone, and I wouldn't see any
argument against it (I'm sure someone in this list will though... :) ).
Your thoughts?
The overall benefit over our virtual package
On 01/06/2012 06:43 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
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
On 01/06/2012 11:06 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
That's what I don't get! I think using a remote MySQL is as uncommon as
a chrooted CGI environment. [...] we should apply the same reasoning to the
MySQL
server. There's no logic at all here.
i beg to differ.
web applications that use mysql (or
On 01/06/2012 02:46 PM, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
live with the idea that Debian must be usable for everyone in the
world (which is impossible, IMHO) but that's the life.
at least debian is equally bad for everyone/everything, having almost no
worst cases by itself, already is quite a good thing,
45 matches
Mail list logo
