Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > Dear list, > > Well, I wondered, whenever an application needs a http-demon (for example > phpgroupware, egroupware, prelude and many others), all packages force to > install apache. There is no way, to get rid of this. As we say "Small is > beautifull" or "KISS = Keep it simple stupid" , IMO there is no need, to > install mighty apache ! Many of the lower level packages concerned use apache modules to do some of the tasks. Alternatives would need to be found for those because the apache2 modules will not work with a different server. Probably the best starting point is working out whether packages that use libapache2-mod-php5, libapache2-mod-perl2 or libapache2-mod-python could use libfoo-mod-bar instead and then work the alternatives into the dependency chain at that point. It would be a slow process - it is not as simple as you may think. > So it would be nice, if all maintainers could build the packages, with an "OR" > opoortunity like "recommended apache or thttpd or whatevereslse" , so the > user could choose, which http-demon he would like to use. There's no point offering an alternative httpd if the package has not been tested with the alternative - let alone the other reverse dependencies. If you are willing to do the testing and show that X package can work with an alternative httpd, file a wishlist bug against the package asking for the alternative. This kind of thing needs someone to do the testing and development - are you volunteering? -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature