Re: Removing web server dependencies from web apps
On 01/06/2012 05:12 PM, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
> Thomas Goirand, 2012-01-06 08:56+0100:
>> Also, it's very surprising to see that we have dependencies for web
>> servers, but most of the time *not* for mysql-server, which is as much
>> needed in order to run these applications. I really don't understand the
>> logic behind this.
> The database server used by a given piece of software can be installed
> on another system. The Web server cannot.
See my reply to Miroslav about this.
>> 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.
> This sounds like you are using your own crafted stuff to provide the
> needs of your software stuff. Just like someone that would for instance
> compile his own version of Python from sources.
Why do you think this is uncommon? Doing shared hosting services isn't, and
if you don't use a good chrooted thing, you don't have security. I don't
to compile ANYTHING, I use plain Debian, and all packages that comes with
it. And I would like to keep things this way.
> Well, in such a case I
> see it as a will not to use the package manager, and thus your
> responsibility to do whatever is needed to fool it. This is usually done
> by creating fake empty packages, I guess.
That's exactly what I would like to avoid!
>> 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.
Then please explain to me how I can install let's say wordpress, in a
of course, without apache), without doing some hacks! Yes, wordpress is
ME to install a web server package.
> That it would be a very bad thing to do. Most users want to install
> software so that it works without further questions.
Excuse my wording, but that's plain wrong (no aggressiveness intended).
These packages don't depend on a database server, so that's not the case.
> You are in a very
> specific, specialized case, so you should be able to deal with it.
Plain simple: we can support ANY cases (by not depending on a web
server), or we can say that we only want to support SOME of them,
in which case we should also depend on a MySQL server. Otherwise,
there's absolutely no logic at all in what we are doing.
Also again, how hard is it to just do "apt-get install apache2"? Do
you *seriously* think that someone capable of installing a MySQL
server, a php web app, AND configuring the web server to run it,
can't do this? Again, remember that most apps will NOT setup the
virtualhost thing, as this is a task left to the administrator.
Also, if we have the web server dependency downgraded as a
Recommends:, then BY DEFAULT, it will be pulled. So what's the
big deal here?