Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:29:32 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: "Daryl Chance" <dchance@valuedata.net> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Apache 2.0...ports? Message-ID: <15022.44380.113476.726171@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <4733739@toto.iv>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daryl Chance <dchance@valuedata.net> types: > What would be the chances of getting apache 2.0 added to > the ports collection? I know there are some other development > (beta/alpa) ports out there (samba/lynx). Is there any interest > in getting this added to the ports collection at all? Clearly, there is some - you're interested in it. Building apache from their distribution is pretty simple - I do it because I want more control over the config than any of the ports. 2.0 should build equally easily, so just doing that is probably the best route. That also means that turning it into a port is pretty straightforward, and there are probably people who would appreciate it if you took that step as well. Note that "developement" means different things for different projects. For some, the "development" version is usually builds and runs, but gets bugs more often than the developers things is reasonable in production software. For others, it tends to be in an incredible state of flux, so getting a copy that works is more a matter of luck than anything else. The former are good port prospects, the latter are not. I've seen things that imply that apache 2.0 is in the latter category, so... <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15022.44380.113476.726171>