From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 14 15:22:56 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF6A16A4CE for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:22:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from cultdeadsheep.org (charon.cultdeadsheep.org [80.65.226.72]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB2D43D67 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:22:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org) Received: (qmail 83017 invoked by uid 85); 15 Jan 2004 00:22:50 +0100 Received: from sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org by goofy.cultdeadsheep.org by uid 82 with qmail-scanner-1.20rc2 (spamassassin: 2.61. Clear:RC:1:. Processed in 0.085837 secs); 14 Jan 2004 23:22:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO persephone.cultdeadsheep.org) (192.168.0.8) by goofy.cultdeadsheep.org with SMTP; 15 Jan 2004 00:22:49 +0100 Received: (qmail 35407 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2004 00:22:15 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO lucifer.cultdeadsheep.org) (192.168.0.2) by persephone.cultdeadsheep.org with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 15 Jan 2004 00:22:15 +0100 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:23:26 +0100 From: Clement Laforet To: Pawel Malachowski 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> Organization: tH3 cUlt 0f tH3 d3@d sH33p X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.8a (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="Signature=_Thu__15_Jan_2004_00_23_26_+0100_YWJ/.yEgG0hCcIYM" cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Apache-related ports changes X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:22:56 -0000 --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 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--