This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Pre-ITP: apache/mod_php


On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 06:17:01AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Anyway, I'm getting pretty close to being able to ITP a whole slew of
>stuff but I'd like to get some opinions on some matters first.  Below
>are some issues to consider:

This is exciting stuff (I don't get out much).

>- mysqlclient.  At the moment I'm compiling the "PHP bundled" MySQL
>client library, but I think it would be better if Cygwin had mysqlclient
>and mysqlclient-devel packages.  That way mod_php could link against
>those, and the issue of "no other Apache modules can use MySQL if you
>use the bundled php version" is solved.  I'll take a look at packaging
>this as well, I've read that the -client packages compile cleanly.  I
>don't think the -server side builds clean yet though.

It's about time that we had mysql in cygwin.  Are you volunteering to
maintain it or asking for someone else to do so?  If so, this probably
should be a separate message.

>- versioning: Apache 1.3 vs 2.x and php4 vs php5.  For apache, I had
>planned to just adopt the "apache" = 1.3 and "apache2" = 2.x method.  So
>/etc/apache/*.conf, /usr/lib/apache/mod*.dll, /usr/share/apache, etc. 
>And when 2.x is ready, /etc/apache2/*.cond, /usr/lib/apache2/*, etc. 
>Contrast to Debian which has /usr/lib/apache/{1.3,2.0}.  For php I've
>used "php4" throughout, so /etc/php4/*.ini, /usr/lib/php4/*, and so on. 
>If/when php5 is ready I think it should co-exist with s/php4/php5/ in
>the names.

Seems ok to me.

>- Package naming.  We already have "apache" and I was planning on
>"mod_php4" for the main PHP module.  Alternatives: libapache-mod_php4,
>apache-php4, apache-mod_php4, etc.  Same for mod_ssl and other Apache
>modules.  And the question still remains what to call the additional PHP
>extension packages, as any of the extensions from the group in C) above
>can be made its own package.  So for example we could offer a
>"mod_php4-pgsql" package that would add postgres support.  Some of them
>though don't really deserve their own package, I mean I think it would
>be safe to require bzip2 and zlib and not offer them as individually
>selectable modules.
>
>Or, there could just be the single mod_php4 package, but only the
>modules from C) that correspond to installed packages are enabled in the
>postinstall, so that they don't pull in a bunch of stuff in the
>"requires" line.  Under that scenario if you wanted to e.g. add postgres
>support you would install the postgres package, then reinstall mod_php4
>(or re-run its module config script) and the pqsql module would be
>automagically activated.  I can see pros and cons to both ways of doing
>it - what do you think?

I think I like this being picked up in the post install but I can
see the cons in doing that.  It *seems* like it should be obvious why
your postgres stuff isn't working if you haven't installed postgres
but...

Otherwise, I think I'd prefer that the names begin with some variation
of apache, just for clarity.

cgf


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]