From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 11 11:56:10 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC441065675 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:56:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from frantisek@farka.eu) Received: from vps.myspace.cz (unknown [IPv6:2001:5c0:1514:2000:5054:ff:fe00:412]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 512CA8FC16 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:56:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (41.145.broadband14.iol.cz [90.181.145.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps.myspace.cz (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0BBu8PU024137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:56:08 +0100 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:56:08 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?RnJhbnRpxaFlaw==?= Farka To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20120111125608.0f7e8656@farka.eu> In-Reply-To: <4F0C63E6.6020604@my.gd> References: <4F0C0E3D.7010906@nagual.nl> <4F0C4BF6.6030401@my.gd> <4F0C63E6.6020604@my.gd> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: FreeBSD9 + PHP X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:56:11 -0000 On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:14:30 +0100 Damien Fleuriot wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 1/10/12 4:34 PM, Alejandro Imass wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > >> > >> > >=20 > > [...] > >=20 > >> > >> Mine is, as I pointed out in my earlier reply to Dick, that people > >> who don't even *use* apache shouldn't get stuck with a *useless > >> apache module* just because they installed PHP. > >> > >> > >> A possible alternative that would keep everyone happy would be > >> *another* package that actually includes the module, like for > >> example a package called "mod_php5", it would install the stuff > >> from php5 + the apache module. > >=20 > > Could be, something like mod_perl, but contrary from Perl, PHP is > > not very useful without Apache anyway. > >=20 > >=20 >=20 > And who are you to claim that "php is not very useful w/o apache > anyway" ? I mean, just because it falls within your needs doesn't > mean it's a good option for everyone. >=20 >=20 > In the same way, I could claim that rsyslogd should replace syslogd in > the base system because I find it better, so everyone should use it. >=20 >=20 >=20 > We use PHP here in a production environment on many servers that have > never seen, and will never ever see, apache. >=20 > On some it runs daemons, on some it runs scripts, on yet some others > it's served by either nginx or lighttpd, not to mention dedicated > fastcgi servers that don't have a web server running to begin with. >=20 >=20 The thing is much more users probably use PHP with Apache than standalone. Although you described other way, it is not the way=20 majority of user would use. >=20 > IMO the best option would be a separate package, enforcing an apache > module on people that will never ever use it is just plain dumb. >=20 > This also seems to be the opinion of the port's manager, seeing > mod_php is unselected by default. Separate package would probably be the best option. But default flags/packages should be ready-configured for most of users, shouldn't they? For others there are still ports. >=20 > Just my 2 cents. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" --=20 Franti=C5=A1ek Farka