why is the PHP stuff line "off" by default in ports/lang/php5?

Ian Smith smithi at nimnet.asn.au
Tue Sep 21 10:23:43 UTC 2010

In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 329, Issue 2, Message: 14
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:22:57 -0700 Rob Farmer <rfarmer at predatorlabs.net> wrote:
 > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 08:00,  <doug at 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

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list