Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 00:20:55 -0500 From: "Patrick Bihan-Faou" <patrick@mindstep.com> To: "Bill Fumerola" <billf@chc-chimes.com> Cc: <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ports/15873: New Apache_fp+php+mod_ssl-1.3.9+3.0.12+2.4.8 port. Message-ID: <011c01bf573c$a436eae0$c80aa8c0@local.mindstep.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001050011420.66359-100000@jade.chc-chimes.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, > On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote: > > > To me the ideal situation would be: > > - a simple apache port (apache13) > > - a new port category (maybe) for the apache modules where I could find > > mod_ssl, mod_php, mod_frontpage, mod_xyz, etc. > > and the apache13 port might also have a dialog script that could choose > all of the above (and resolve conflicts etc). I am not sure weither you are being sarchastic here or not :)... I guess you are right there need to be something like that, but maybe the answer is not the FreeBSD port system. My point was that having so many apache ports is more annoying than beneficial, especially when you start to go in dependencies stuff... SO to rephrase my comment, a *minimal* set of apache ports for the really major conflicts inducing tricky interaction of some major modules is OK. But having an apache port for each and every combination of apache modules that exist is NOT a good thing. What if I want mod_frontpage but not php or mod_ssl ? Patrick. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?011c01bf573c$a436eae0$c80aa8c0>