Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:23:31 +1000 (EST) From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> To: Rob Farmer <rfarmer@predatorlabs.net> Cc: doug@fledge.watson.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why is the PHP stuff line "off" by default in ports/lang/php5? Message-ID: <20100921185247.N11124@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <20100921062151.185441065695@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20100921062151.185441065695@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-2120974583-1285062551=:11124 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-ID: <20100921194926.W11124@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 329, Issue 2, Message: 14 On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:22:57 -0700 Rob Farmer <rfarmer@predatorlabs.net> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 08:00, <doug@safeport.com> wrote: > > I think that response was not all that unreasonable. > > I'm not sure if you are referring to me or ale here. To ale@ I expect. Since I started this in response to Gary's surprise, I'd better try cleaning up a bit :) > > 3) I think (proof left to the reader) there is an apache/php package. > > There's not. There's no way to run pkg_add -r <whatever> and get the > apache module (either that or it is poorly named and not found with a > search). > > And, as I understand it, at one point there was, then it changed. Well, to be fair, it was quite a long time ago. As I recall without searching back years, when php5 came out both it and php4 - which had hitherto included mod_php in the distributed package - began defaulting to not building the module, rendering php packages useless for mod_php users. I think at that point apache 1.3 was still mainstream and 2.0 was still fairly new, perhaps in devel/ .. but I might misremember. > My suggestion was to add it back via a slave port (say > lang/php5-apache). This would be *in addition* to the existing > lang/php5 port and everyone who is worried about unnecessary > dependency bloat, security, etc. would be free to keep using that. > > Supposedly, there is a reason that shipping a binary package for this > is impossible, despite the fact that every major Linux distribution > does (and thus millions of web servers run this way) and supposedly > there are many detailed descriptions of this reason in the list > archives, though I can't find any. Well, I pretty well got it from the bit of ale's albeit terse response that you haven't mentioned: "You have to comile the module for your specific apache installation." which Matthew Seaman (thanks) has since expanded on more thoroughly. [And while there's LOTS of things about Linux I don't like, Debian's excellent binary updates for both system and apps isn't one of them; except a few customised apps, we've never _had_ to compile anything] > Adding the slave port was a good faith suggestion about how to > improve the situation to meet everyone's needs. I feel it is rather > dismissive and somewhat rude just say "The answer is simply 'no'" > without any explanation. Noone disputes your good faith; I think Alex was saying 'no' to me as much as to you. Most developers rarely appear (nor have spare time to read) freebsd-questions, and it was my cc that dragged him into this. > If it has been discussed so many times (for the record, I have been > subscribed to this list for two years and have never seen such a > thread), then it shouldn't be too hard to post a link. And if the > maintainer is too busy with other work to do that, then, as I said, > don't reply and let someone else explain it. Be not too easily annoyed, to invoke the old Fidonet adage :) I've been subscribed to questions for over 12 years, and most of these discussions were much longer ago than two. I expect most such discussion would have been on ports@ and perhaps other lists many/most of us don't follow. Whether packages of just the module and the necessary updates to apache configuration to use it for each of 1.3, 2.0 and 2.2 are feasible, I don't know. I'd use one if it was there, but don't have the time nor skills necessary to make such ports myself, so I'll shutup now :) cheers, Ian --0-2120974583-1285062551=:11124--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100921185247.N11124>