why is the PHP stuff line "off" by default in ports/lang/php5?
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
> 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 :)
More information about the freebsd-questions