Date: 27 Jul 2005 09:58:22 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: Mike Friedman <mikef@ack.Berkeley.EDU> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fastcgi port fixed but not updated? Message-ID: <4464uw5p1d.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <20050726142005.V67832@malcolm.berkeley.edu> References: <20050726103124.S67832@malcolm.berkeley.edu> <44zms9mfxn.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <20050726142005.V67832@malcolm.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Friedman <mikef@ack.Berkeley.EDU> writes: > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 at 17:10 (-0400), Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > > Mike Friedman <mikef@ack.Berkeley.EDU> writes: > > > >> I've recently discovered a problem report for the mod_fastcgi > >> (2.4.2) port: > >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/79774. The report > >> seems to indicate that the port was fixed shortly after the PR was > >> sent (May 31), yet I just did a cvsup and the buggy port still > >> shows up. > >> > >> ... > >> > >> Anyone know what might be going on? Since the fastcgi port is > >> called by the rt-3.4.2 port (which is my real interest), keeping my > >> fixed version of the former around under a different name is not > >> really a good option, in case I need to update RT. > > > > The bug report claims that the install fails. It works fine for me > > with the Apache 1.3 port, so I suspect that a more sophisticated fix > > would be needed; if the path were hard-coded as you suggest, the > > port would *only* work with Apache2. > > Lowell, > > I can see your point about the content of the fix. But the bug report > does say the following (in the Audit-Trail): > > Port has been updated since this PR has been sent. > It seems to install flawlessly. > > As you say, the one line fix (in 'do-install') would not seem > consistent with your experience installing fastcgi with Apache 1.3, > where you don't have the problem. (I'm installing RT with fastcgi and > Apache 2). Just looking at the Makefile didn't reveal to me that the > fix proposed in the bug report wouldn't be appropriate for Apache 1.3. > > But my question was motivated by the apparent contradiction between > the above-quoted statement in the report and the fact that the port > wasn't actually updated (perhaps for the reason you give). > > Meanwhile, I'm left with a mod_fastcgi port that will not install, as > delivered, with Apache 2. Yet the RT port depends on the fastcgi port. Yep. Your problem is actually different than the one in the PR. I suggest filing a new PR; preferably with a committable fix.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4464uw5p1d.fsf>