Guillaume Rousse wrote: > Le 22/03/2012 02:51, David Walser a écrit : >> Guillaume Rousse wrote: >>> Le 17/03/2012 03:22, Anssi Hannula a écrit : >>>> Hence I suggest a single user id to be used. (I'm fine with any other >>>> solution which works as well) >>> My main concern is the fuzziness of the current situation where we have >>> - one virtual package 'webserver' corresponding to four implementations >>> (apache, lightpd, nginx, cherooke) >>> - one common base (webserver-base) only used by the two first ones >>> - all our web applications packages using 'apache' as mandatory dependency >>> >>> If the main concern is file ownership, I'd propose for the next release >>> to have each of these servers use a distinct uid, document root and >>> index page, but use a shared 'webserver' or 'www' gid, and ensure all of >>> those applications use group-based permission, instead of user-based. >>> I'd find this setup a bit clearer. >> >> I also noticed two of the php subpackages adding the apache user in %post. >> Should they be doing this, should they Requires(post): webserver-base, or >> should this be handled some other way? > Sure, that's wrong. > > Either they need apache itself, in this case this dependency is already > ensured. Either they can be used without a web server, in this case they > shouldn't use apache server anyway.
Well a dependency on apache wouldn't be ensured unless they required apache-mod_php, so for now I added Requires(pre): webserver-base and removed their manually adding (and deleting!) of the apache user. One of the packages puts a log file with the httpd logs, so it should probably require apache. I'm not sure the exact semantics of those two (php-fpm and php-session if you're interested). There's another problem, however, since the expat update. Since libexpat.la was removed, php won't rebuild.