From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Sep 17 12: 0: 5 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60FD437B424 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id MAA41710; Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:00:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200009171900.MAA41710@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Robert Watson Subject: Re: ports/18083: Gratuitous Apache package inconsistencies Reply-To: Robert Watson Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR ports/18083; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Robert Watson To: ade@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/18083: Gratuitous Apache package inconsistencies Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:54:19 -0400 (EDT) On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 ade@FreeBSD.org wrote: > As has been discussed on numerous occasions on the -ports mailing > list, and elsewhere, a number of individuals are working on > a complete revamp of the Apache ports. > > Since this PR simply tells us what we already know, without any > suggestions as to fix it, and given that the PR hasn't been > touched since its inception in April 2000, I'm closing it. I was a little surprised by this response, especially given that it took eight months to see that further suggestions were required, and for that notification to involve the problem report being closed rather than a request for clarification. I felt that the problem description for the libmm dependency problem in Apache-modSSL was quite explicit: an actual library dependency was not expressed in the ports Makefile. I do not know if this has been fixed yet; if it has, it was not noted in any way in the problem report. Similarly, the comments on the consistency of {directory,file,daemon} names were pretty explicit in terms of a suggestion for improvement. I assumed that the best replacement names would be known by the ports maintainers, it was a question of deciding to do so. If a more specific suggestion is needed, then I suggest the following changes to the Apache-modSSL port to bring it in line with the main Apache port as an interim solution: use httpd as the daemon name rather than apache, use httpd.conf as the configuration file name, rather than apache.conf, and use /usr/local/www/data as the docroot directory. This will allow users switching from Apache to Apache-modSSL to see a consistent file and directory layout for both, making it more in line with POLA. I'm glad to hear that the Apache port is being revamped, but keeping the problem report open until the problems are fixed would probably lead to a greater sense of confidence that problem reports serve any useful purpose. On a similar note, if further suggestions for are a fix are required, indicating to the submitter of the report that this was the case, rather than brushing them off after 8 months, might also be a good idea. Robert N M Watson robert@fledge.watson.org http://www.watson.org/~robert/ PGP key fingerprint: AF B5 5F FF A6 4A 79 37 ED 5F 55 E9 58 04 6A B1 TIS Labs at Network Associates, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message