I had php, php7.3 and php7.3-fpm installed on buster but not libapache2-mod-php7.3.

The bullseye upgrade installed and enabled libapache2-mod-php7.4, which also changed
the Apache mpm. This is undesirable.

This is because php7.4 depends on libapache2-mod-php7.4 | php7.4-fpm | php7.4-cgi,
so apt installed the first. Shouldn't php7.4 depend on the unversioned components instead?



Hamish

Dear submitter,

as the package php7.4 has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/1004353

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

Please note that the changes have been done on the master archive and
will not propagate to any mirrors until the next dinstall run at the
earliest.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

reassign 1004325 php8.1
reopen 1004325

I reported this against php7.4 but it still applies to 8.1.


Hamish, annoyed that this was closed without any review.

Hi Hamish,

There's no way how to express what you want in the APT dependency language.  If
you want to keep only the FPM SAPI, you basically need to remove `php` and
`phpX.Y` packages and only keep `php-fpm` and `phpX.Y-fpm` installed.

No, installing php7.4 does exactly what it is described:

But even if we changed to unversioned components - that would not work - people
would then complain that installing `php7.4` pulled `php-fpm` which would pull
`php8.2-fpm`.  This makes even less sense.

I am leaving this opened, but this is currently impossible to fix.

The only possibility I can think of is to just drop the `php` and `phpX.Y`
package completely and make it virtual package provided by the right SAPIs.

I can take a look at this in the next development cycle if that would work as I
have a feeling this might be just shoving the same problem to the downstream
packages.

Cheers,
Ondrej

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=fhiw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----