David.Comay at Sun.COM wrote: >>> Generally the exact name of the plug-in (after s/mod_// and s/_/-/) >>> should appear in the package name. >> >> +1. Ditto other packages in the same collection: you didn't mention >> such atrocities as plugin-php52 > > As I mentioned, we're about to fix these but I want to reconfirm this > particular one. Is the PHP module for Apache strictly tied to the PHP > version? From the module name, it would appear to be although it's > unclear to me how stable or unstable the interface is. Put another > way, is this better as > > web/server/apache-22/plugin/apache-php > > OR > > web/server/apache-22/plugin/apache-php5 > > OR > > web/server/apache-22/plugin/apache-php52 This makes more sense to me. > > Note that the mod_php5.so is delivered as a link to mod_php5.2.so > although the conf file is php5.2.conf. If we ever needed to support > two PHP releases, will Apache likely require different plugins to > support both? Though, we might, in future, deliver 2 versions, both of them are mutually exclusive . So, a user can have either apache-php52 or apache-php53 loaded but having both these php versions loaded in the same process doesn't make much sense (at least to me)
On the sidelines, shouldn't this httpd-<modulename> rather than apache-<modulename> ? I am not sure, which one conveys a better message here. - Sriram > _______________________________________________ > > > webstack-discuss mailing list > webstack-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/webstack-discuss
