From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 27 13:58:23 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B5416A41F for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:58:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from mail21.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail21.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.23]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F76D43D45 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:58:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: (qmail 11599 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2005 13:58:23 -0000 Received: from dsl092-078-145.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO be-well.ilk.org) ([66.92.78.145]) (envelope-sender ) by mail21.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 27 Jul 2005 13:58:23 -0000 Received: by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 76E292A; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:58:22 -0400 (EDT) Sender: lowell@be-well.ilk.org To: Mike Friedman References: <20050726103124.S67832@malcolm.berkeley.edu> <44zms9mfxn.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <20050726142005.V67832@malcolm.berkeley.edu> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 27 Jul 2005 09:58:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20050726142005.V67832@malcolm.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: <4464uw5p1d.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Lines: 49 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fastcgi port fixed but not updated? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:58:23 -0000 Mike Friedman writes: > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 at 17:10 (-0400), Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > > Mike Friedman 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.