Bjorn Munch wrote: > On 22/05 17.36, Thava Alagu wrote: > >> (snip...) >> I think having this dependency makes the life easier in most >> common situations. >> Though, this can in principle, be used with any PHP capable webserver, >> it is better >> to point to specific dependency so that users can automatically install >> the dependencies >> and ready to go. Atleast if they install all these dependencies, they >> are assured to >> get the product up and running. >> > > Yes, I see the logic and your point. And sorry for nitpicking, but I > get nitpicked against when I try to integrate stuff. :-) > > I admit that I'm not sure what exactly is meant by dependency between > packages, maybe there is a definition somewhere? But I think the > focus is in technical dependency, not logical. >
In many ways, what is needed is the thing Jyri brought up on the pkg-discuss list. Other packaging systems have a mechanism by which you can require *an* http service, or an SMTP service, but you do not have to specify which service. I don't think we've solved for that yet though. Since that's the case, perhaps we should integrate without a dependency on Apache, and file an RFE to depend upon the http service, pointing to the IPS RFE (if there is one)? Then we wouldn't lose track of it. It may also be worth sending a note to the pkg discuss list describing the question to see what they say. Bjorn, could you do that? Thanks, - Matt
