Poll for new default install options: php5/suPhp/dovecot

[jmstacey]

I accidentally voted for Php 5 and suPhp, I'd prefer just plain PHP5 with suphp as an option, such as zend is.

Although customapache may be more convenient for DirectAdmin I'd prefer everything to go through the OS distribution's package system. Efficiency tends to improve when you don't have to worry about any loose programs.

 

[Chrysalis]

I like the idea of having suPhp as default, but it was mentioned this might cause script problems.. can anyone elaborate on exactly why this would cause a problem? Some examples, etc..

If it's an install time option anyway, it doesn't matter.. there isn't really a "default" with choice.

John

On a shared server its probable that at least one person will have something that wont work with suphp, problems are common which is probably why not everyone out there is using suphp, please dont make this a default.

I think the reason why the poll is different to the discussion is because people are voting assuming newer is always better and suphp is all singing and dancing addon that will solve all their security problems.

 

[Chrysalis]

The discussion doesn't seem to be matching the poll results, but either way, here's where I'm leaning.

1) Setup.sh will ask you a few questions as to what you want:
- apache 1 or 2
- php 4 or 5
- suPhp or not

should be a command line version available as well.. will be backwards compatible, so the current command line setup.sh will install just same stuff (1.3, 4, no suphp)

2) all that data will be saved into a file in the customapache directory. "./build all" will read it and compile the right stuff.. so that you can just do the update, clean, all commands to get updated with whatever you have.

3) you'll get dovecot, no options

So, let me know your thoughts, if we like that or not.

John

Sounds good to me, if dovecot is a no choice will it still be possible to import old email data from pre dovecot? example, you move form a older DA server which hasnt got dovecot on and install DA on the new server, restore the backups which of course are not right format for dovecot. What would happen then?

 

[empowering]

What problems??

Can someone be specific with what problems they have with suphp? Any "problems" we've had are simple fixes/workarounds.

 

[Chrysalis]

I accidentally voted for Php 5 and suPhp, I'd prefer just plain PHP5 with suphp as an option, such as zend is.

Although customapache may be more convenient for DirectAdmin I'd prefer everything to go through the OS distribution's package system. Efficiency tends to improve when you don't have to worry about any loose programs.

customapache is one thing I like since even on none DA servers I compile php and apache from src, not keen on using them from within ports.

 

[Chrysalis]

What problems??

Can someone be specific with what problems they have with suphp? Any "problems" we've had are simple fixes/workarounds.

may be simple fixes workarounds to you, but if suddenly 20 users have broken websites it builds up. Choice is king how can choosing suphp be worse then having to install it?

 

[empowering]

customapache is one thing I like since even on none DA servers I compile php and apache from src, not keen on using them from within ports.

for rpms distros keeping them as rpms is best. Not the distro's rpms but DA rpms would be best.

When you have 20+ servers to manage customapache complies sucks.

 

[empowering]

may be simple fixes workarounds to you, but if suddenly 20 users have broken websites it builds up. Choice is king how can choosing suphp be worse then having to install it?

Ok so the issue is not the issues per say but getting around to resolving the things suphp does break?

 

[Chrysalis]

Ok so the issue is not the issues per say but getting around to resolving the things suphp does break?

well the issues are the problem also since it upsets users, the issues are an issue to users and fixing them is an issue for me.

 

[Chrysalis]

for rpms distros keeping them as rpms is best. Not the distro's rpms but DA rpms would be best.

When you have 20+ servers to manage customapache complies sucks.

personally I am not a fan of precompiled binaries I always like to compile, it takes longer but you dont have to sit there watching it.

 

[justahost]

The whole shebang I say - I have seen problems with scripts when swapping to PHP5, so if people have options of 4 or 5 they would be happy - I like the security side of suPHP

 

[DamnSkippy]

Hey John, is it even possible to be able to select the version of php, apache on a per account or per domain basis? It sounds like a great thing but I am not even sure it is possible.

Plus having different versions running on the server sounds a bit like a nightmare to me.

 

[jmstacey]

It's not the compiling that bugs me, it's the disorganized management. Instead of having all currently installed versions vs. available versions for the entire server on one screen you've got to keep track seperately.

Who said anything about ports? Use dpkg

 

[schristm]

John,

I think that mod_php4, mod_php5, suphp + php4, suphp + php5, etc. should all be options of the customapache build script. I don't really have a preference for the default install. I think that it's probably safe to leave the default install the way it currently works and allow people to rebuild using customapache if they want to enable php5 or suphp.

I, personally, would prefer to have php4 and php5 compiled as CGI's and wrap them both with suphp so that by default, .php files use the php4 suphp binary, and .php5 scripts use the php5 suphp binary. I'm sure others would prefer things completely different. In this case I believe the best thing you can do is just provide the flexibility to have it however you want it without forcing any changes on anyone by default. An ideal solution, in my opinion, is simply an easy-to-use customapache build script to help to automate the installation of suphp and php 4/5.

Thanks!

 

[jbw]

The discussion doesn't seem to be matching the poll results, but either way, here's where I'm leaning.

1) Setup.sh will ask you a few questions as to what you want:
- apache 1 or 2
- php 4 or 5
- suPhp or not

should be a command line version available as well.. will be backwards compatible, so the current command line setup.sh will install just same stuff (1.3, 4, no suphp)

2) all that data will be saved into a file in the customapache directory. "./build all" will read it and compile the right stuff.. so that you can just do the update, clean, all commands to get updated with whatever you have.

3) you'll get dovecot, no options

So, let me know your thoughts, if we like that or not.

John

Dovecot should have option of mbox or Maildir format.

 

[DirectAdmin Support]

our setup of dovecot only works with Maildir. We haven't setup any mbox options for it.

John

 

[ccto]

We have running Dovecot (since its beta 3) plus suPHP 0.5 + PHP 4.3.11, it is working fine for a few months already.

If possible, it would be great if it can compile both PHP 4 and 5 in CGI and CLI mode,
CGI mode is for user http/php program, CLI mode is for DA execution.
and then let the end-user choose which PHP version to run in DA control panel. Then, it would be best.

I have seen this feature in Netfirms, their panel can allow end-user to choose which php to execute.

 

[Chrysalis]

ccto idea I would accept php4+5 with 5 been available for .php5 extension but with suphp optional.

 

[Maniak]

I gave my vote to Php 4 + ( Php 5 + suPhp )

Simply because PHP can't be discontinued because of a lot of scripts and PHP5 as to to be able for people who wants to use it.

It's a great feature.

ccto idea I would accept php4+5 with 5 been available for .php5 extension but with suphp optional.

I don't believe that it's possible to run both PHP without suPHP using only one version of apache, and the same port ;-)

1) Setup.sh will ask you a few questions as to what you want:
- apache 1 or 2
- php 4 or 5
- suPhp or not

And why not the complete list like :

Apache 1 + PHP 4
Apache 1 + PHP 5
Apache 1 + PHP 4 + PHP5 + suPHP

Apache 2 + PHP 4
Apache 2 + PHP 5
Apache 2 + PHP 4 + PHP5 + suPHP

and one bolded "recommanded" ?

 

[empowering]

I don't believe that it's possible to run both PHP without suPHP using only one version of apache, and the same port ;-)

Nope is possible. Do it now.

http://www.pookey.co.uk/wiki/php/suphp_mod_php