From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Mar 14 16:14: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from vcnet.com (mail.vcnet.com [209.239.239.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C55EA37B86A for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:14:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jpr@vcnet.com) Received: (qmail 69534 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2000 00:13:59 -0000 Received: from joff.vc.net (HELO ?209.239.239.22?) (209.239.239.22) by mail.vcnet.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2000 00:13:59 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:13:58 -0800 To: ports@freebsd.org From: Jon Rust Subject: Why no apache-fp-ssl-php? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I'm in the process of building a new web server. On my current box, I've got apache-php, apache-fp, and apache stronghold all running separately. On the new server I'd *love* to be able to have all this functionality in one package. Jonathon Frazier has assembled such a port, but it was rejected by "the powers that be" and thus won't be maintained. What a huge loss this is! Can I ask why it was rejected? The port is an incredible time saver since making all these pieces work together is NO SMALL TASK. Why would the port maintainers reject such a useful addition? And one that is so wanted by us users (as evidenced on the -questions and -stable mailing lists in recent months)? Thanks for your time, jon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message