Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:12:13 +0100 From: Clement Laforet <sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org> To: dirk.meyer@dinoex.sub.org (Dirk Meyer) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Apache-related ports changes Message-ID: <20040115171213.10e3d317.sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org> In-Reply-To: <Gw133r/GYD@dmeyer.dinoex.sub.org> References: <20040114212351.2c0f28d6.sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org> <Gw133r/GYD@dmeyer.dinoex.sub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Signature=_Thu__15_Jan_2004_17_12_13_+0100_Neh/knes2JKIaXCF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:00:16 +0100
dirk.meyer@dinoex.sub.org (Dirk Meyer) wrote:
> This wwill add more work for each port,
> as with updates teh port may no longer work for ap13-
> or is now supporting ap2- and more ....
> To make a prot reflect this, we have to rename it in furture.
> CVS reprocopy would be needed for each version we addionally support.
> I would like to avoid that, as this breaks updating for the ussers.
>
> What about "russian/apache13" ?
> and another API "www/apache13-modsssl" won't fit in this prefix idea
> yet.
>
> Better we use a suffix in pkg_name or leave is as it is.
> We can easy make a slave port so we can have packages for more than
> one apache port.
It's a dilemna, that's why I asked for comment.
Slave ports is a nice idea, and we can auttomacily add a correct
suffix.
We gonna take as example mod_security. As many people are currently
switching to apache2, we can provide mod_security packages for apache13
and apache2 (and surely apache21). If you follow currently bad habit,
we'll name the slave port mod_security2.
If mod_security team releases a "new technology" version, it will be
mod_security 2.0. As someone will port it, how will he call the
directory ?
mod_security_2{-ap13/-ap2} ?
Anyone who browse ports collection will say "hey man, what a mess !"
We can keep actual "anarchy", but I doubt we can keep it homogeneous
easily.
> > - apache version/port detection
>
> !!!Please!!!
> It must be possible to build a package in jail,
> with correct dependencies, even if no ports installed.
> autodetection can help, but options to force a customized build
> are more important!
In fact apache will be split in 3 major branches, containing ports.
Autodetection will first check the branch, and then the ports.
For apache13, it will detect their variants, and for apache2 variants
(currently not applicable) and MPMs.
User can still define APACHE_PORT=<what you want> if no port is currently
installed.
clem
--Signature=_Thu__15_Jan_2004_17_12_13_+0100_Neh/knes2JKIaXCF
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFABrvdsRhfjwcjuh0RAjgbAJ9roFioqXoRkq91JJdheC9GLE47WACg2iMu
rHiw/hSUDCQitlNcL8iDxvs=
=4zSD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Signature=_Thu__15_Jan_2004_17_12_13_+0100_Neh/knes2JKIaXCF--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040115171213.10e3d317.sheepkiller>