Re: Bug#368225: please don't!
On Mon, 19.06.2006 at 11:19:22 +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <email@example.com> wrote:
> Toni Mueller wrote:
> > I'd say that making a "LAMP" package that includes a lot of PHP stuff
> > and not much else is sort of hijacking a good name for a bad purpose.
> > lamp-python ("best" language)
> > lamp-perl ("original" definition of LAMP)
> > lamp-php
> > In any case, I think that also probably libapache-mod-chroot should be
> > included and configured in any standard Apache install, and that the
> > BTS probably isn't the best place to discuss such policy questions...
> What about creating a source called lamp that will create all these little tiny
> lamp-* packages (arch: all) that can be updated as you like indipendently from
> apache and leave apache on its own?
in case I wasn't clear, I'd like to repeat that I don't really see
added value in creating those lamp-* packages at all, and consider
these to be very similar to a task package, if anything. The reason is
that you don't need to do much in order to pull in most required
pieces, and some of the proposed choices are imho quite arbitrary.
IOW, they'd imho be much more trouble to maintain, than to a user's
benefit. It's also of very debatable merit to ease setting up a
(likely) broken web server because it would just mean that Joe Sixpack
needs to issue only one instead of five to ten commands to get all
stuff included which would mostly *only* benefit Joe Sixpack and not
someone who has half a clue already.
If you feel you need to create (one or more) lamp* packages
nonetheless, it would be imho a very bad idea to hijack the name and
hardwire it to some PHP (and other inferior) stuff, instead of creating
sort of a namespace for all flavours of LAMP that are commonly
But this really belongs on -devel and not into the BTS anyway, Cc'ing.