Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:26:23 +0400
From: croco@...nwall.com
To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: contrib php & apache-php

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:57:57AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> 
> As you mentioned, you're trying to install these on Owl-current.  The
> contrib packages are for 2.0-stable.  If you want to use them, then you
> could consider, say, installing a 2.0-stable userland into an OpenVZ
> container.

Understood.  Then, may be the directory structure on the ftp should be
reworked somehow.  Currently the 'contrib' directory lies outside of the
dirs devoted to the branches such as 2.0-stable or 2.0-current or whatever
(actually, on the same level as they do) thus making an impression that
inside one could find packages good for any release.  Inside the 'contrib'
directory, there's only one directory, named just '2.0' (without any
-contrib, -current etc).  It is therefore a kind of 'odd knowledge' to
understand that the packages aren't good for the Owl installed from a
recent CD.

>  Frankly, these contribs are also outdated, which is highly
> undesirable for things such as PHP.

Agreed.  However, what is the, hmm, intended use for the present contents
of the 'contrib' directory?

> > Definitely I can rebuild everything from sources; however, may be someone
> > already has the appropriate packages?
> 
> You can try CentOS 4 packages.  I'd be curious to know if they install
> and work on Owl-current.  We're not using mod_php ourselves (instead we
> run PHP via our customized suEXEC wrapper when we need that, optionally
> also with FastCGI), so we have not had the opportunity to test.

Oh, this scheme is attractive, I'd like to use it too (it looks better
than mod-php).  However, do I get it right that this solution is not
available for public?  Is it intended? 

That's to say, I understand there can be different reasons for not sharing
packages, I only want to rest assured there's a reason for it.

> There are proper links here:
> 
> http://openwall.info/wiki/Owl/packages
> 
> Unlike our contribs, CentOS 4 packages are actually maintained/updated.

Thanks!
BTW, it might be not bad to have a link (in the form of .message file) from
the ftp (may be from within the contrib directory) to that wiki page.

> > Anyway, I strongly believe that packages distributed via the 
> > site (even contributed) should at least install, or not to be distributed 
> > at all.
> 
> Agreed.  If you show that a package does not install on its intended
> version of Owl, then it is to be removed from contrib, but you have not
> shown that so far.

Oh, well, now that you've just shown me the intended version, I agree I
can't show the packages don't install on it.  However, may be the intended
version itself should be shown in a more clear way?
 



Thanks a lot for the prompt answer and for all the great job you do!


--
Croco

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail owl-users-unsubscribe@...ts.openwall.com and reply
to the automated confirmation request that will be sent to you.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.