Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:56:08 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?RnJhbnRpxaFlaw==?= Farka <frantisek@farka.eu> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD9 + PHP Message-ID: <20120111125608.0f7e8656@farka.eu> In-Reply-To: <4F0C63E6.6020604@my.gd> References: <CAJxePNJcTh0QZfr_YOLwN-R1nOrdJETxgMPPm78S35MAsipsug@mail.gmail.com> <aef8c5199b6d01d3fc5d21ac120574a7.squirrel@pop.pknet.net> <CAJxePN%2BGKorAeHCh0HRfUqwAOJ-x%2B_xtPiHk_XDuRAmJWYdgoQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F0C0E3D.7010906@nagual.nl> <CAHieY7Ty_4_wziq217Y7pAAzGTZOX-0EY%2Bf4J-bgF5_RtCyD4w@mail.gmail.com> <4F0C4BF6.6030401@my.gd> <CAHieY7Sdya37xcw7peyygQgJcefXTwWN4N4eNq6h8OB3y=KQLw@mail.gmail.com> <4F0C63E6.6020604@my.gd>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:14:30 +0100 Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> wrote: > > > On 1/10/12 4:34 PM, Alejandro Imass wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> wrote: > >> > >> > > > > [...] > > > >> > >> Mine is, as I pointed out in my earlier reply to Dick, that people > >> who don't even *use* apache shouldn't get stuck with a *useless > >> apache module* just because they installed PHP. > >> > >> > >> A possible alternative that would keep everyone happy would be > >> *another* package that actually includes the module, like for > >> example a package called "mod_php5", it would install the stuff > >> from php5 + the apache module. > > > > Could be, something like mod_perl, but contrary from Perl, PHP is > > not very useful without Apache anyway. > > > > > > And who are you to claim that "php is not very useful w/o apache > anyway" ? I mean, just because it falls within your needs doesn't > mean it's a good option for everyone. > > > In the same way, I could claim that rsyslogd should replace syslogd in > the base system because I find it better, so everyone should use it. > > > > We use PHP here in a production environment on many servers that have > never seen, and will never ever see, apache. > > On some it runs daemons, on some it runs scripts, on yet some others > it's served by either nginx or lighttpd, not to mention dedicated > fastcgi servers that don't have a web server running to begin with. > > The thing is much more users probably use PHP with Apache than standalone. Although you described other way, it is not the way majority of user would use. > > IMO the best option would be a separate package, enforcing an apache > module on people that will never ever use it is just plain dumb. > > This also seems to be the opinion of the port's manager, seeing > mod_php is unselected by default. Separate package would probably be the best option. But default flags/packages should be ready-configured for most of users, shouldn't they? For others there are still ports. > > Just my 2 cents. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- FrantiĊĦek Farka
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120111125608.0f7e8656>