Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 15:16:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Intuitive Design Archive <archive@in-design.com> To: James FitzGibbon <james@nexis.net> Cc: Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, ache@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Suggested change to apache port Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970427151346.1032A-100000@nero.in-design.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970427143834.15556A-100000@nexis.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, James FitzGibbon wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, Chuck Robey wrote:
>
> > directory to exist using the BUILD_DEPENDS stuff, which would get the
> > fetch/patch/whatever done for you. That part at least is simpler now
> > that that used in those old tcl/tk things, which used to do cd's and
> > makes (I found that real ugly!)
>
> But wouldn't build depends go into ${PORTSDIR}/www/apache and do a make
> install ? If someone had made modifications to their webserver and then
> made mod_perl, they'd end up with an httpd binary containing just mod_perl
> and not their previous configured modules.
>
> Do we have to admit that the existing ports system doesn't lend itself to
> people who stray from the baseline ports ?
I always thought that was both the attraction and disadvantage to ports.
Although you will always get a easily build program for your system, the
customizing step is left completely up to the person who ports the
software. For me anything that is mission critical, I build my self on
my machine and test it with several different combinations. Isn't that
the idea or getting the src after all?
Intuitive Design Archive
http://www.in-design.com
archive@in-design.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970427151346.1032A-100000>