From owner-freebsd-apache@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 22 19:46:25 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apache@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D434F106566B; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:46:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohauer@FreeBSD.org) Received: from u18-124.dslaccess.de (unknown [194.231.39.124]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D338FC12; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:46:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.20.1.100] (unknown [172.20.1.100]) by u18-124.dslaccess.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C9A920760; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:46:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4D88FC8B.90207@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:46:19 +0100 From: Olli Hauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: apache@FreeBSD.org References: <4D87E58C.9030804@gmx.de> <4D8805A8.3090502@p6m7g8.com> In-Reply-To: <4D8805A8.3090502@p6m7g8.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Philip M. Gollucci" Subject: Re: patch for bsd.apache.mk is ready for review ... X-BeenThere: freebsd-apache@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ohauer@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Support of apache-related ports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:46:25 -0000 On 2011-03-22 03:12, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > On 3/21/2011 7:55 PM, olli hauer wrote: >> Hi Philip, >> >> a new patch for bsd.apache.mk is ready for review. >> >> I've done some tests in tinderbox and it looks good, >> but maybe you find something I've overlooked. >> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~ohauer/diffs/Mk/PR_147009_ports__Mk__bsd.apache.mk_2011-03-22_01.diff > > Looks fine to me. > Hi Philip, a first local exp-run was nearly 100% success. A hand full ports which need some fixing, special if they are in master slave combination and have both times USE_APACHE?=/= ab+ defined. For example www/mod_jk (1.3+) and www/mod_jk-ap2 (2.0+) Both times the preferred apache (2.2) was chosen now, but this is easy to fix. Do you already have an apache 2.3/2.4 port for testing available? I suspect there are some candidates which have defined USE_APACHE?=/= ab+ which cannot be build with 2.3/2.4. I will then run the next local exp-run to identify these ports. -- Regards, olli