Re: Doubts about PHP
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 02:47:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 07:12:47PM +0200, Gregory Colpart wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 06:06:14PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>
> > > That's exactly the reason why I recommend to Depend on php5.
> > > $ apt-cache show php5 | grep Depends
> > > Depends: libapache2-mod-php5 (>= 5.2.3-1) | php5-cgi (>= 5.2.3-1),
> > > php5-common (>= 5.2.3-1)
>
> > > That's more than enough.
>
> > * For web server, I recommend:
>
> > Depends: apache2 | httpd
>
> > * For PHP depends, if your application is compatible with PHP4, you
> > should let php4 and php4-cgi (because php4-cgi is not in depends
> > of virtual package php4 in sarge):
>
> Which makes it not particularly relevant to newly-packaged software. In
> fact, you can pretty much drop the 'php4' alternative altogether now, since
> php5 was in etch and php4 won't be in lenny.
while I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to use php4 ... ;-)
what about backports?
if a package actually works with an older version of supporting
software, why not use that usefull information in the dependencies
instead of throwing it away ?
Saying that package x depends on package y >= 5 when in fact x depends
on y >= 4, just because that version of package x is being packaged for
unstable and there is no y < 5 in unstable really seems like a lost
opportunity to me :-(
I can see that a packager should have to do the extra work of figuring
out what historical versions their package might work with, and I can
see that there is a trade-off to communicate to packagers who might
otherwise spend time unnecessarily chasing details which are not
relevant to the main task. But if the info is handy anyway, why not
put it in ? It's not like it's mistakable for a promise to maintain
other people's builds of the software against versions not in unstable
or is it ?
sorry for the confusion, but this is something that has bugged me for
some time. Could you enlighten me ?
Regards,
Paddy
Reply to: