Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:39:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> To: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> Cc: cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/apache13-php3 Makefile ports/www/apache13-php3/files md5 configure.patch ports/www/apache13-php3/patches patch-aa patch-ab patch-am patch-an ports/www/apache13-php3/patches.modssl patch-aa patch-ab patch-ag patch-ak patch-al patch-am ... Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.02A.9810012236550.21931-100000@redfish> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9809301356380.2242-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, John Fieber wrote: > On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Andreas Klemm wrote: > > > andreas 1998/09/30 11:16:08 PDT > > > > Modified files: > > www/apache13-php3 Makefile > > [...] > > Maybe somebody can clarify this for me...I thought one of the > great advances of Apache 1.3 was the ability to build modules > separately from the server, so I'm wondering why we have this > proliferation of apache ports with various module combinations. > Is it not possible to have a (php3|ssl) module port that simply > has a build and runtime dependency on the base Apache port? Not for SSL, no, because the base distribution can not include what is necessary to make SSL doable as a strict module without any code changes because the US gov't has some mental lapses. Possibly for php, haven't looked in depth. Certainly for your run of the mill "mod_foo". However, "run of the mill" modules are less commonly made into ports than big things that may need more changes. Now, however, it is far more possible to do so if they can be dynamically loadable. Note that none of this prevents binaries from being distributed, packages from working, etc.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.02A.9810012236550.21931-100000>