Jump to content
Froxlor Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by crazy4chrissi

  1. That sounds and looks great. Good work! I think in the longrun it would make sense to separate the Froxlor frontend from the backend. I guess it could make sense to install the froxlor backend without the frontend, but use your own frontend. Or someone may come of with a CLI tool that can talk to the froxlor API and you don't need any webfrontend at all. That would be really cool. As I guess there are no other backends that support the same API, it does not really make sense to use the froxlor frontend without the backend. So I see the frontend as a component that requires the backend, but the backend as a component that could be used standalone.
  2. Currently, there is a Debian package for Debian Wheezy and Debian Jessie. They are the same Froxlor version, just the dependencies are slightly different. The problem is their naming. The wheezy package is called version-wheezy and the jessie package is called version-jessie. The problem with this approach is that in the alphabet, j is before w, and thus the wheezy package is considered newer than the jessie version. This means when you upgrade from wheezy to jessie, it will keep the wheezy-package installed even if you change your repository to the jessie-repository. This is not such a big problem, because both packages are mostly identical, only the dependencies differ. But for example, it means you cannot switch to mariadb on jessie, because you have the wheezy-package which requires mysql and does not support mariadb. You first need to "downgrade" the froxlor package to the jessie package in order to use mariadb. Most other packages use +deb7 for debian wheezy packages and +deb8 for debian jessie packages. This works correctly as expected. Also, there is no repository for stretch, yet.
  3. I think there should be an universal Debian package for froxlor that asks you what you want (debconfig). This script should tell you that you need a webserver and that you have to choose between those offered. It should detect if one of the webservers is already installed and tell the user that it detected this and recommend using the one installed. But there should also be an option "install no webserver, I do it manually" for those that prefer writing their own werbserver or do not use a package but compiled one themselves (which would be difficult to detect for the install script). The same for all the other things like mailserver, ftp server, webmailer, pma etc. I think having lots of different packages does not make sense. It makes releasing a new version a lot more complicated and it confuses users. A newbie wouldn't know which package to choose. Having an installer that tells him "You need a webserver, choose one from the list. If you are unsure choose apache", a newbie would know what to do. (Although I think people that do not know any webserver should not install froxlor, but you can always argue "I install it on a local machine to learn things."...) So in conclusion, I vote for an improved installation process: http://forum.froxlor.org/index.php?/topic/1322-improving-the-froxlor-server-installation-process/
  • Create New...