-----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 offloading and load balancing [1]. However I'd yet disagree with Thomas. Yes, his scenario is feasible and a perfect use case for equivs, but I do not think, we should generally drop dependencies to web servers because of that. I personally do not get, why we do need packages of web applications at all, but apparently other people do. Yet I do think, users of such packages expect us to setup a working instance, just like we do for almost every other package. We just can't provide a scenario which fits all and generally I think, people using advanced setups like chroots and CGI offloading are expected to know how to workaround such problems then. >> But since I would install these packages in the chroot template, I *do >> not* want to install apache there. The result is that I can't install >> popuplar packages like wordpress, gallery, phpbb3 and so on, unless I >> rebuild them and remove the "apache2 | httpd" dependency. I suspect that >> I wouldn't be the only one with the issue. It has been said before: Provide a httpd-cgi and a httpd package in your chroot, and all is good. >> Remember that a strong dependency is *forcing* users to install things, >> and when, like here, it's going the wrong way for what one would do, >> it's just *bad* (tm). > > No it is not. Using a package-based distribution that could take care of > dependencies and not using that feature is, however. Agreed. My bottom line is, the overall benefit of depending on a web server for a web apllication is higher than working in special case scenarios we - as a distribution - do not support just because we can't. That has already been said before, so this argument is a bit redundant. >> So, my suggestion would be to actually *remove* the dependency to the >> web server (and move it as a Recommends: if you see fit...). I would >> strongly advocate for this as being written in our beloved policy. Why would web applications be the only exception of the rule? I'm sure there are many more special case scenarios where a weaker dependency would be better, but the overall benefit is more valuable. In fact, we do have "Depends" at all then? I'm sure there is a special use case for almost every dependency where it would be better not to have it at all. [1] http://redmine.lighttpd.net/wiki/lighttpd/Docs%3AModFastCGI - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPBtBCAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNt0DwQAMCeqP8dnYO+etDDhTDadln2 GwS55LsRhvL9J3oyQ4/adVPdEwTqJTqtkOibe9OknWymBVW30+bEZApT93XGnBhT 0mJga486QXRKHM2xiS1W5M8a7SegMKjU83gtSaetgs8hccWwjnnsZV7D/1XGYxam qmwfg3H/Qk9gROdBjpnKNSO3YJK9CZzb4ZFZ9kF+VJDsh8T3k4ajX0mwlf2fws19 D495jrCZhNmDG0+F+k+3UvQfDO48xOw7aD6QJs2taHxGrD8zg6/J10/8m15aKjLV u6GXfbXA3WVIxrSnvWyNWupGGjaF3dm7IaUncI0NpCRrFocFCu553PHBud5tofYB wZYOC6fr5ZtfomX7jcD+LNWUBjcTAgTl6MHwHtIwCwsoxxC/duARqzdJBh1lBJUE KX6SQQ/vVT5NO5wbwuNYb+4R77YxYwpxps0mzfuckJJZfzmn9Lm48B5uFjfqJA5u inJL1+NVCdIjqlODSmQQPFJacAQ5mI0K7r8IaxckOnFm6V1fhJtyh50muTHnMcdT B96MRDJi00tnd0iJMGxIrTwB2+ibWPnFy1ig9nLE69EVex/PrmJkvY9/h66NY1dO Ht37Th5idbrFgBouCtGXVO+oyHzZUmqkvYguJ7ni3V2L/mII9yA5EUXDL5Tt5A/Q ilIisPkeSRKsQVr/7PKb =IL3m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f06d042.9080...@toell.net
