From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Mar 14 21:11:59 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mail.westbend.net (ns1.westbend.net [209.224.254.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD86D37B896 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:11:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hetzels@westbend.net) Received: from admin (admin.westbend.net [209.224.254.141]) by mail.westbend.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA14926; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:11:49 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from hetzels@westbend.net) Message-ID: <01f001bf8e3c$f80ac2e0$8dfee0d1@westbend.net> From: "Scot W. Hetzel" To: "Jon Rust" Cc: References: Subject: Re: Why no apache-fp-ssl-php? Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:11:49 -0600 Organization: West Bend Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.3825.400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.3825.400 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org From: "Jon Rust" > 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)? > Because creating all these apache13-a-b-c-..-x-y-z ports creates bloat in the ports collection and makes it harder to maintain the individual apache13-* ports (Besides the same changes needs to be made to each port when upgrading). Also, having all these Apache13-* ports confuses our users, because they have to decide if they are going to install the Apache13 port or one of the Apache13-* ports. And then when they want to upgrade their server to use mod_ssl, mod_frontpage, mod_x, mod_z they get discouraged because we only support a couple of modules in each of our Apache13-* ports. Having individual Apache Module ports allows them to add functionality to their server as they need it. Another concern is with port maintainers that do create Apache module ports, they have to decide on which apache13-* port to support, since no two apache13-* port installs their files in the same location and with the same names ( httpd/apache for the server daemon, httpd.conf/apache.conf config files, different locations for the DocumentRoot, proxy cache directory, etc...). Mathew Dodd and myself have created a Modular Apache. I just got done tweaking it to work with FrontPage. It is available from: http://www.westbend.net/~hetzels/mod_apache.tgz There are currently, 4 ports; Apache13 mod_ssl mod_frontpage mod_php4 Try them out, and let me know if they work for you. NOTE: Just untar them to a separate directory as they don't require being placed under the ports collection in order to find their dependencies on the Apache13 port. Scot W. Hetzel To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message