From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tinyArch.localdomain (unknown [78.110.170.148]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F80E01304 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.49] (unknown [195.171.99.130]) by tinyArch.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BDD0B600CA for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:03:47 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4FEB2521.3020203@communistcode.co.uk> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:22:09 +0100 From: Jack Mitchell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120616 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yocto@yoctoproject.org References: <20317992.tBZ1YY1I5v@helios> In-Reply-To: <20317992.tBZ1YY1I5v@helios> Subject: Re: LAMP layer X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:21:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 27/06/12 15:05, Paul Eggleton wrote: > Hi all, > > In conjunction with the folks at Wind River I'm currently in the process of > putting together a layer to support the traditional LAMP stack, and wanted to > solicit some opinions on how this might be structured/named/etc. > > I think we have the "L" pretty much covered ;) and we have MySQL in meta-oe > (I'm not convinced that's where it should stay, although perhaps it need not > be tied to this layer either). So the layer would at the very least be adding > Apache and PHP, with the possibility of web-related python and perl recipes > being added at a later date. > > Some of the other things I'm looking at adding more immediately: > > * collectd > * mysql-connector-odbc > * phpMyAdmin > * unixODBC > * xdebug > > The question of how this should all be structured is still not fully > determined. I'm thinking this ought to be at least one additional layer (i.e. > meta-lamp, or some other name), even in the face of the proposed meta- > networking, since the number of recipes in the LAMP layer is likely to grow > over time and it's a specific set of functionality that people would explicitly > select. > > I now have updated apache and modphp recipes building and working reasonably > well, although further testing will be needed. Initially I'm prepared to > maintain these recipes, however if not immediately at some point in the near > future it would be good to see a maintainer step forward with more specific > knowledge of these particular pieces of software. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Paul > > Hi Paul, I think this is a fantastic idea in general and if I remember correctly someone from Linaro was attempting to do something similar to this the other day - so I can't only be me who would appreciate something like this. The one issue I have (initially) is why should it be limited to the Apache web server? There are a couple of good web servers out there which lend themselves much more to an embedded style development than (IMO) the bloat that is Apache. For example: Lighttpd (already in core) nginx Hiawatha (my personal favourite - I have a recipe I already use in conjunction with PHP) I also remember someone from WindRiver posted recently regarding a meta-networking layer, which I also thought was a great idea if not only for (in my use case) tftp/net-snmp support all rolled up and supported. Maybe this could be a layer with that "section"? i.e. meta-networking meta-webserver (meta-l*mp?) recipes-* recipes-* meta-* .... .... I'm sure you get the idea... Regards, -- Jack Mitchell (jack@embed.me.uk) Embedded Systems Engineer http://www.embed.me.uk --