Re: [owl-users] contrib php & apache-php

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 02:26:23PM +0400, croco_at_private wrote:
> 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.

The "2.0" directory name was meant to suggest that the packages were for
2.0-release and/or 2.0-stable.  There's no "2.0-current", you imagined
this name. ;-)  There's just current (the directory name) or Owl-current
(the name we sometimes use, such as in ISO filenames on the development
aka current branch), which is newer than 2.0 and no longer fully
package-compatible with 2.0, but not yet 2.1.

The alternative would be to place the contrib directory under
2.0-release and symlink it from under 2.0-stable, or vice versa.  Maybe
that would have been cleaner, maybe not.  Opinions are welcome.

Based on your feedback and the confusion you've identified (thanks!),
I've just created a README file under /pub/Owl/contrib/2.0.

> > Frankly, these contribs are also outdated, which is highly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?

There's little use for it right now - just those obscure cases where one
does not care to run maintained packages.  When I created the directory,
those packages were not outdated yet, and it was possible that we'd
receive newer versions in form of further contributions (from the same
people or otherwise), but this did not happen.

We intend to build and make available our own Owl add-ons after the next
release of Owl, and we'd try not to abandon them like that.

> > 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.

Thank you for your criticism.  Yes, there are several good reasons why
our current web hosting stuff is not suitable for the public.  We hope
to include newer revisions of some of it in the Owl add-ons I mentioned
above, but no promises yet.

Actually, a specialized version is available from WebEnabled:

http://www.webenabled.com/server-link-image-download

...but it is mostly intended for website development with the WebEnabled
platform rather than for independent production use.  Yet you may misuse
it for the latter at your own risk.  Currently, it installs on 2.0-stable.

> > 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.

I've included it in the README file mentioned above.  I've also created
.message as a symlink to README, but it won't propagate to the mirrors.

Alexander

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