From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 24 22:53:10 2005 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 A9DA616A4CE for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:53:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.197]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403F443D45 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:53:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from swhetzel@gmail.com) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 69so265497wri for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:53:09 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=V44b/llP81zt31PsME/NhIiD0aU5ENlUVbHAoDvduI4LeDf3gNmS5NrA14mG/AgkOTxKVgqolvmJjXWXynErLou0V7X3/HowfZgZnDAHko53xCLtrK7AwnVLlm2a8Cv23AbhQgFSXQ5u1mkRLtCfBsFmW9/ey84WJr4pqbIKddE= Received: by 10.54.57.15 with SMTP id f15mr111309wra; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:53:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.29.8 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:53:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <790a9fff05022414531dd27600@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:53:09 -0600 From: Scot Hetzel To: Joe Rhett In-Reply-To: <20050224203342.GH49530@meer.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <892CC2C451D0414B90159D10B5BDAA65AB2234@EXCHANGE.astate.edu> <20050207202417.GB37923@meer.net> <20050208004233.GA84236@xor.obsecurity.org> <790a9fff050208142045266974@mail.gmail.com> <20050224203342.GH49530@meer.net> cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: Todd Reed Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: frontpage-5.0.2.2623_1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Scot Hetzel List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:53:10 -0000 On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:33:43 -0800, Joe Rhett wrote: > Why rename the port? You've fixed the main frontpage port to use the > rtr-supplied binaries. Why is mod_frontpage being renamed instead of > reused? > The www/mod_frontpage port wasn't renamed, as it still exists. This port uses sources from "Improved mod_frontpage" which was an attempt to replace having to use a patched Apache server (i.e. the old www/apache-fp port). With the recent versions of the RTR FrontPage Extensions, no patching the Apache server was required to use their mod_frontpage module. Because the new "RTR mod_frontpage" version (www/mod_frontpage*-rtr) is not compatible with the old "Improved mod_frontpage" version (www/mod_frontpage). I did add some features from the Improved mod_frontpage: - Allow/Disallow Client to publish with FrontPage Extensions - Allow/Disallow Administration of web site with FrontPage Extensions But I used 2 options (FrontPage [on,off] / FrontPageAdmin [on,off]) instead of 4 options (FrontPageEnable,FrontPageDisable / FrontPageAdminEnable,FrontPageAdminDisable). The RTR mod_frontpage module doesn't disable the FrontPage Extensions (unless the port is compiled with WITH_DISABLED). The Improved mod_frontpage defaults to disabling the FrontPage Extensions, until FrontPageEnable and/or FrontPageAdminEnable are added to the httpd.conf file. www/mod_frontpage*-rtr can be made compatible with Improved mod_frontpage when WITH_MODFP_COMPAT and WITH_DISABLED are used to build the port. Scot