From owner-freebsd-apache@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 7 15:14:20 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apache@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F2BDE35; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 15:14:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mout.gmx.net", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass DE-1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A68E116E; Sun, 7 Sep 2014 15:14:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([87.139.233.65]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MaaOf-1XgGH21oAT-00KBY9; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 17:14:17 +0200 Message-ID: <540C764E.4060308@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 17:14:22 +0200 From: olli hauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Weinberger Subject: Re: apache 2.2 ports References: <8DF8037F-F9EC-488D-86C4-0923789C174C@adamw.org> <540C33E6.3040805@gmx.de> <4D3C03D8-2C96-46BD-B97E-590227C8FEF0@adamw.org> In-Reply-To: <4D3C03D8-2C96-46BD-B97E-590227C8FEF0@adamw.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:4Pwrd4mHzGQf8kM12G1lWoehIcxh9kZq8/eVlNY7rBYrdvnJLY2 IgXgNT41SPouFhjSHTEuPPM3kh0+Gugz1WwtgWGleTyhnvyaU8BSpeE7HFBBxODrB/fmD1b OLgWfCp7c7cLdi8HW+G6paOyeQBeGxuPcFB2sPqkxX2OhfLem3BDZnz4rpvKSkPCiCS+jDt aGu4gxwoF7FycutzfoL3w== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; Cc: "apache@FreeBSD.org" , portmgr@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-apache@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Support of apache-related ports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 15:14:20 -0000 On 2014-09-07 16:59, Adam Weinberger wrote: > On 7 Sep, 2014, at 6:31, olli hauer wrote: > >> On 2014-09-06 17:24, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>> apache team - >>> >>> So it seems that setting USE_APACHE=22 doesn’t actually depend on apache-2.2. This means that every USE_APACHE=22 port is broken, and as of right now won’t have any 10.1 packages. >>> >>> I’m happy to go through and add "DEFAULT_VERSIONS= APACHE=22” to this ports, but I wanted to check with you guys first. Is that the right way to fix it? Is there something else that can be done to make USE_APACHE=22 actually depend on apache-2.2? >>> >> >> Hi Adam, >> >> could you give the patch below a try? >> I've tested the patch with a small selection from USE_APACHE=(22|22+|24) ports and with the patch bsd.default-versions.mk does not overwrite the requirements. > > That patch works perfectly for me. USE_APACHE=22, 22+, and 24 all do the right thing now. > > However, it doesn’t check against bad values. USE_APACHE=42 just drops the apache dependency altogether... most other USE_* systems put out an error in that situation. > > # Adam Hi Adam, are you sure about bad values? Tested only with simple ports $ cd www/mod_log_sql2 $ sed -i.bak 's/22/42/' Makefile $ make ===> mod_log_sql-1.101_6 : Error from bsd.apache.mk. Illegal use of USE_APACHE ( 42+ ). *** Error code 1 $ cd www/blogsum $ sed -i.bak 's/22/32/' Makefile $ make ===> blogsum-1.1_2 is marked as broken: : Error from bsd.apache.mk. apache24 is installed (or APACHE_PORT is defined) and port requires apache32 at least. *** Error code 1 I have to admit bsd.apache.mk is not optimal, needs a major rewrite and split into separate server / modules files. For server bsd.apache.mk is OK but modules and other stuff should go into a Uses/apache.mk file. -- olli