Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 15:36:07 +0200 From: Mel <fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: n j <nino80@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Makefile OPTIONS (was: Re: Apache 2.2.8 + mod_authnz_ldap) Message-ID: <200805091536.07612.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> In-Reply-To: <92bcbda50805090615l7d1e0ac1r947ec9f31e7a2b9f@mail.gmail.com> References: <92bcbda50805090615l7d1e0ac1r947ec9f31e7a2b9f@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 09 May 2008 15:15:05 n j wrote:
> > What are you using for apr? The one that comes with apache itself, or the
> > devel/apr port?
>
> AFAICT, the one that comes with Apache itself.
>
> It would seem that mod_authnz_ldap required mod_ldap to be compiled in
> Apache to work. Having little or no experience at all with Apache +
> LDAP combination so far, this was not really straightforward to me.
If this is a fixed dependency, then it's a bug in the port's Makefile. If it's
not set in stone (i.e.: mod_authnz_ldap could also work with
mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap), then applying the logic you suggest, would kill
the option to use mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap.
Set in stone would mean, "if there is a port mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap, or
enough people have complained that they cannot use
mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap, even though there's not a port for it".
--
Mel
Problem with today's modular software: they start with the modules
and never get to the software part.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200805091536.07612.fbsd.questions>