On 1/10/12 5:01 PM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
> Op 10-1-2012 15:30, Damien Fleuriot schreef:
>>
>> On 1/10/12 11:11 AM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
>>> Op 9-1-2012 21:06, Chuck Swiger schreef:
>>>> On Jan 9, 2012, at 12:02 PM, alexus wrote:
>>>>> there is no way to make it like that? so it has to be build via ports?
>>>> The PHP maintainer decides the default options, which is what the
>>>> precompiled package you got used.  While many people want PHP in the
>>>> form of an Apache module, other folks use it via fastcgi and so
>>>> forth...
>>> Yes that might be so. But it's far better to *have* this module and
>>> disable it in Apache than not have it at all and for that reason only
>>> *buiild* apache from ports in stead of using a package.
>>>
>> Yeah, no thank you.
>>
>> What about those people that don't even *use* apache and want to install
>> PHP ?
>>
>> We get stuck with a useless module ?
>>
>> Really, *no thank you*
> Wow, that really IS bad.. considering the price of drivespace.. No it
> really is much better to *force* everyone who wants to run apache/PHP to
> *build* from source. No pkgadd for those guys..
>


It's not about disk space, it's about the philosophy behind it.

Following the same line of thinking, the CGI binary should also be
included, along with spawn-fcgi, php-fpm and so on.


A separate package would be ideal, it'd be the same as php5 but would
also include the apache module.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@free... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@free..."