Jump to content
Froxlor Forum
arnoldB

The Froxlor Debian package(s)

Recommended Posts

Dear Froxies,

the Froxlor team would like to start a discussion about the Froxlor Debian package(s) and how they can be improved. :)


Current state:

You can source the Debian package via the Froxlor Debian Repository on http://debian.froxlor.org/ or downloading the *.deb file via http://debian.froxlor.org/pool/main/f/froxlor/ .

The package contains currently the Debian specific package dependencies and recommendations:

Dependencies:
apache2 | lighttpd | nginx, php5, php5-cli, php5-mysql, mysql-server, mysql-client, mysql-common, webalizer | awstats, libphp-phpmailer (>= 5.1), wwwconfig-common

Recommendations:
postfix-mysql | exim4-daemon-heavy, libsasl2-modules-sql, maildrop, courier-authlib-mysql | dovecot-common, courier-imap | dovecot-imapd, courier-pop | dovecot-pop3d, php5-gd, php5-suhosin, php5-imap, proftpd-mod-mysql | pure-ftpd-mysql, bind9

--

So we (I) got a lot of feedback about this structure. If you install Froxlor with "apt-get install froxlor" from the Froxlor repository, there will be a lot of packages prepared to install.

Many users want to install Froxlor WITHOUT any additional software, they have to configure apt to ignore the above depend. and recom.

There are a lot of users, who just enter the command and don't know what they install.



Ideas:

What about the Debian package dependencies/ suggestions/ recommendations? Do we really need them? Since Froxlor requires only a webserver, PHP and MySQL, we're able to drop the following dependences/ suggestion/ recommendation categories:

Webserver
MySQL-Server
FTPd
Mailserver (MDA & MTA)


This wouldn't cut any features. The installation tutorials should just be expanded to install additional packages (which the user really wants).

Old installation command:
apt-get install froxlor


New installation command:
apt-get install froxlor mysql-server apache2 [...]

Another solution would be to create an additional package, next to the current one. This would be a package with plain dependencies (like the properties described above).

What would you prefer?


Your turn:

What do you think about this?
Give us your feedback!
Please participate on the poll above. :)


We are glad to hear from you. :)

The Froxlor team

Edited by d00p
removed advertising

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, that everyone who is willing to install froxlor, also knows how to install a webserver and so on. If i want to install froxlor with nginx, I'm kind of pissed by froxlor adding automatically all those apache things. Maybe there is a possibility to handle certain froxlor-packages. Maybe like this:

 

Package: froxlor-nginx (contains all packages you usually need for a nginx environment, including mail,ftp and so on); froxlor-apache (contains all packages you usually need for a apache environment and so on); maybe also one for lighttpd

 

AND there should be one like froxlor-only. So maybe froxlor-only or whatever, so with no dependencies.

 

(I hope my english is understandable ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you set aptitude not to install recommended packages, it's fine.

 

/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20norecommends

 

APT

{

Install-Recommends false;

}

 

Also, I agree to froxlor-apache / froxlor-nginx packages.

 

Regards,

/Sorin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a really difficult subject. Every point has its pro and cons.

 

Although you should know what you need to run a webserver not every one does. So per se it's nothing wrong to have packages following the credo everything you need will be installed. Further it allows new users to have a quick look into the system. Anyway in the current state the packages prefer given components like Apache, which may not be needed for everyone.

 

On the other hand it could come in handy to have multiple packages with different applications. But as you can easily see there are a whole bunch of combinations possible apache+postfix or exim lighttp+postfix and so on (hope that i didn't messed anything around). So without good automation package creation can become a pain and time killer (and the devs are already short in time). Neither do i know if the package creation is always possible without problems, which is another point against such a package diversity.

 

What I would prefer is to drop all requirements and simply install a plain Froxlor. Maybe an Installer script could be written which guides the user to package install process where he can choose between the possible combinations (just like the discussion in this thread: http://forum.froxlor.org/index.php?/topic/1322-improving-the-froxlor-server-installation-process/).

 

I think this is the right way as with a more modular froxlor, you may have to install, cause of some module, other applications by hand anyway. So why not behave like this from the start. Indeed it would be needed to expand corresponding howtos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with philnate and crazy4chrissi. "Drop all dependencies & recommendations" in combination with a new installation process would be best IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a version with all default dependencies should stay for new users. Experienced user have no problem install everything with a standalone or use a tar.gz.

But create additional packages like froxlor-webserver (depends on nginx or apache2) and so on, all features work

-> froxlor has froxlor-webserver + froxlor-mail ... as dependences

-> froxlor-standalone has no dependences as extra package without.

-> you can always suppress dependences.

 

If you install froxlor-webserver maybe apache is installed because mod-rewrite and over stuff is more supported by cms right now. If you want nginx simply install froxlor-webserver nginx.

 

PS: In 0.9.26 i have some \n in output in console.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now





×
×
  • Create New...