From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jul 24 13:08:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA21178 for questions-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from houseofduck.dyn.ml.org (ts003d24.sal-ut.concentric.net [206.173.156.84]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA21171 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from shaggy@localhost) by houseofduck.dyn.ml.org (8.8.5/8.7.3) id OAA01589; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:07:42 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.1 [p0] on FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:57:51 -0600 (MDT) Organization: Shaggy Enterprises From: Joshua Fielden To: John-David Childs Subject: RE: Apache and Ports Policies in General Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As I said in the first sentence, I agree in theory, I was merely trying to get you up and running if you hadn't thought of that. :-) I notice there are a few ports that have this problem, yet you may or may not be told until afterwards. If you install the gimp-0.99, it does not give you any warnings, but a `pkg_info -a |grep gimp` gives you a line to the effect of "if you want it to not crash, use the 0.99.9, 0.99.10." It installs .10. This is after it's installed. :-) There are a few others like this I can't recall off-hand, but it seems to be a disturbing trend. At least with Netscape, my port tree has three and a four beta. Neither is stable, but three's as stable as they're ever going to release. :-) And I agree with making Apache as easy to find as possible, as it's the "default" web server installed at setup time, and is the most popular out there. And stable when you find it. On 24-Jul-97 John-David Childs wrote: >On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Joshua Fielden wrote: > >> While I do have to agree in theory with you, I went to Apache.org >and >> got 1.2.1, and it compiled "out-of-the-box." It seems from the web >page >> that they make a special point of listing FreeBSD as one of the >> platforms that it does do this on. > >I wasn't aware that "compiling out of the box" would preclude a >package >from making the ports collection. > >Based upon many of the "I haven't read the FAQ/Handbook/archives/docs" >questions posted to this (and most) lists, IMHO having the latest >stable >version in the "stable" ports tree makes sense (then we don't have to >see >"I've heard about Apache...where do I get it and how do I install it?" >on >the list :-) >-- > >John-David Childs (JC612) @denver.net/Internet-Coach >System Administrator Enterprise Internet Solutions > & Network Engineer 901 E 17th Ave, Denver 80218 >Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing. > > > -- Joshua Fielden, shag@concentric.net SCSI is *not* magic. There are many technical reasons why it's occasionally nessicary to sacrifice a small goat to your SCSI chain.