Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:23:26 +0100 From: Clement Laforet <sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org> To: Pawel Malachowski <pawmal-posting@freebsd.lublin.pl> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Apache-related ports changes Message-ID: <20040115002326.4840bd7f.sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org> In-Reply-To: <20040114225948.GD72981@shellma.zin.lublin.pl> References: <20040114212351.2c0f28d6.sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org> <20040114225948.GD72981@shellma.zin.lublin.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Signature=_Thu__15_Jan_2004_00_23_26_+0100_YWJ/.yEgG0hCcIYM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:59:48 +0100
Pawel Malachowski <pawmal-posting@freebsd.lublin.pl> wrote:
> Some day I wanted to run both Apache 1.3.x and Apache 2.0.x, on the
> same host and environment (only different IP addressess, logs, etc.),
> not in jail, of course I shoot myself in the foot (that was before
> introducing CONFLICTS). Just asking: making Apache ports capable to
> coexist is not possible because of Apache nature also?
An idea behind the fact we should have always the same layout for
apache ports is we can easily write a "apache wrapper". If all ports
supports it, it should be trivial.
In fact, 'only' support utils,httpd and ${LOCALBASE}/www conflict.
clem
--
PGP Key: http://people.freebsd.org/~clement/pgpkey/clement.asc
--Signature=_Thu__15_Jan_2004_00_23_26_+0100_YWJ/.yEgG0hCcIYM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFABc9usRhfjwcjuh0RAotkAJ9KnIYlPnzEEi8mb2NcVf6M9JV53gCg5LaP
5ZUMWgCDJmaHVBPi8CdrLvA=
=kN0j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Signature=_Thu__15_Jan_2004_00_23_26_+0100_YWJ/.yEgG0hCcIYM--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040115002326.4840bd7f.sheepkiller>