[pkg-uWSGI-devel] uwsgi-plugin-php: Provides: php possible?

[Georg Faerber]

Hi Jonas,

Thanks for your fast reaction, and sorry for my late reply, I'm / was
quite busy:

On 17-02-02 10:49:56, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Georg Faerber (2017-02-02 02:04:34)
> > Dear uwsgi maintainers,
> > 
> > I would like to serve icingaweb2 via uwsgi. Currently a part of the 
> > dependency relationship in stretch looks like:
> > 
> > icingaweb2 -> icingaweb2-common -> php-icinga -> php -> php7.0 -> 
> > libapache2-mod-php7.0 | php7.0-fpm | php7.0-cgi
> > 
> > I don't need any of the last three packages if using uwsgi.
> > 
> > I could of course fake this via equivs or something similar, but 
> > wanted to first ask you, if Provides: php could be added to 
> > uwsgi-plugin-php.
> > 
> > I've also asked the php maintainers if the could add uwsgi-plugin-php 
> > to the Depends:, however, I've got a negative response [1].
> 
> This is indeed a bug in uwsgi-plugin-php.  Thanks for reporting!
> 
> Fix being built now targeted unstable.

Great - could we / you ask for an unblock so this would go into stretch
as well? The change isn't that big, and touches no code of uwsgi itself,
so I guess this could / should work out.

> NB! For future reference: More elegant would have been to reassign 
> bug#853891 to uwsgi-plugin-php and then post the above to the bugreport 
> - instead of posting independently to this list.

Yeah, that would have been the better way, that's true. The reason for
doing it the way I did: I didn't wanted to play "bug ping-pong" between
different packages, instead wanted to ask first, if this would be
possible; also because I wasn't completely sure, if this was indeed a
bug. 

Should I reassign the bug accordingly and change the title, to reflect
this as well in the bug meta data?

> Also, you need not subscribe to the list in order to post to it (and
> generally don't for Debian mailinglists). 

Ah...I thought that's only true for @debian.org accounts, isn't it?

> But you are certainly quite welcome to hang out here - and also quite
> welcome to roll up your sleeves help out maintaining the package ;-)

Well, I'm using uwsgi in production and I'm a huge fan, so yes: I could
have a look at the bugs and check these etc., if this would be of any
help. But: I'm not able to do this before end of February due to too
much work.

All the best and thanks again,
Georg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-uwsgi-devel/attachments/20170203/83d59c74/attachment.sig>