Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:49:22 +0100 From: Clement Laforet <clement@FreeBSD.org> To: Brandon Fosdick <bfoz@bfoz.net> Cc: Clement Laforet <clement@FreeBSD.org>, apache@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: www/apache21 update? Message-ID: <20051102204922.GC45383@goofy.cultdeadsheep.org> In-Reply-To: <4365929F.1050303@bfoz.net> References: <436442E5.4090508@bfoz.net> <20051030210955.GB49025@goofy.cultdeadsheep.org> <4365929F.1050303@bfoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 07:42:23PM -0800, Brandon Fosdick wrote: > I noticed that www/apache2 installs > /usr/local/lib/apache2/apr-config whereas www/apache21 installs > /usr/local/bin/apr-1-config. Is this a mistake or intentional? It's historical. apache2 used to install his own version of apr. When I grab maintainership, I decided to keep the old path to respect POLA, since apache 2.0.x was already stable. apache21 port is designed to replace devel/apr or to use it if installed from port. Currently apache 2.1 is a "moving" version and it's port follow the same way. The day apache 2.2 will be considered as stable, port will be frozen, and keep the same options, or at least backwark compatible options. To answer Paul, I'll blindly depend on devel/apr when I can descently rely to apr-*-config or whatever to know run time options. Another point is that, IMHO, I need to guarantee apache users backward compatiblity, like multiple bdb versions support. Current apr/ports framework need to support this. First of all is to finish USE_APACHE=apr. After that, we'll try to unify apr/svn/apache. clem [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDaSZSsRhfjwcjuh0RAv5wAKCjAfnDuP2z/0OM+TcIbKSqvKIshQCeMQBY XJukY3+vqfhJyJBWNzTJcGM= =pmlP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051102204922.GC45383>