From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 22 10:08:15 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7985E106566C for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:08:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (smtp6.infracaninophile.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1:3cd3:cd67:fafa:3d78]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA0118FC13 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:08:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from seedling.black-earth.co.uk (seedling.black-earth.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1:fa1e:dfff:feda:c0bb]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1MA89Gi010732 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:08:09 GMT (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk q1MA89Gi010732 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infracaninophile.co.uk; s=201001-infracaninophile; t=1329905289; bh=VANzFw4cCB+aZClg9osaYW2ooijwcEYP5I/GfQlBiqo=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Cc; b=ip7h1xCVMbvLJu78rs/6RWiL/3dfPGcgr/sf7WWYZRTnJuzFjn1IsGNAEKQz0gx+W hCDNiHeufsH+rizqN6CXvLGGbpgD9pT0HuNEScdddhehlaqA3M9uZvU/dPT/u9OTxl 1k8q3O0O3siGGrLwpN12zk/wz0g8mOSGaHltxZEE= Message-ID: <4F44BE81.9060109@infracaninophile.co.uk> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:08:01 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 OpenPGP: id=60AE908C Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig20B88836C0538065876E1AB0" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.3 at lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on lucid-nonsense.infracaninophile.co.uk Subject: Re: apache22 + php5 (package not ports) ~ spawn-fcgi ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:08:15 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig20B88836C0538065876E1AB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 22/02/2012 05:13, alexus wrote: > thank you for your respond - that's my plan b > i'd like to know if i can exercise my plan a first: > i already have installed apache22, php5 as package (pkg_add) without > having them build through /usr/ports (i know how everyone likes ports > around here). > i want to see if it's possible to have a link between apache22 and > php5 with using packages only (i.e. without /usr/ports) and since > mod_php is mia for whatever reason(s) i want to see if fastcgi can be > used and PHP-FPM isn't available in packages too (i'm start thinking > packages sucks comparing to /usr/ports) basically my last resort (at > least that i know of to try) is to go with spawn-fcgi. i dont have > alot of requirements but i do need apache22 + php5 to talk to each > others and i want to know if it can be done with pkg_add vs /usr/ports It is true that packages are really quite lacking compared to ports. I doubt that it would ever be possible to create pre-compiled packages that provide the same level of flexibility and configurability as you get with ports, but that doesn't mean there are not a large number of improvements that could be made. That packages are not really up to the required standard is well known amongst FreeBSD users, but somehow always seems to come as an unpleasant surprise to new users. If there is a certain detectable note of asperity in the way we say "just use the ports -- it's easy, and fun for all the family" that's because we keep on having to say the same thing over and over. Eventually we'll get fed up with telling people there's no demand, and provide a pkg system more in line with their expectations. Moves are already afoot -- http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng -- but it's going to take some time before that has any material effects on end-user experience. As to your specific problem: yes, it is a cause of contention that mod_php is not enabled in the default php5 package. I don't entirely understand why the port maintainer made that decision. php-fpm is not enabled by default either, because it is still considered experimental code in the currently available php5-5.3.10_1 -- I read that it will no longer be considered experimental in php 5.4 but you're going to have to wait until that gets released. Have you considered nginx + spawn-fcgi? Or lighttpd (with its built-in fastcgi support)? I think those should work entirely through available packages, and should be at least competitive in performance with apache + whatever-PHP. Usually nginx or lighttpd pretty much smoke apache performance-wise, but they are lot simpler and much smaller applications so not quite as capable of doing everything apache can. Cheers, Matthew --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW --------------enig20B88836C0538065876E1AB0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk9EvokACgkQ8Mjk52CukIxB7ACeLOSNVQNoD4jd5KhRtUt5ir1O Z2oAn3Ok9kalPpCLNav2wCv2GmjwUaBQ =b+uz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig20B88836C0538065876E1AB0--