Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:14:30 -0600 (CST)
From:      David Fleck <david.fleck@mchsi.com>
To:        fbsd_user <fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com>
Cc:        Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject:   RE: ports & package names changing?
Message-ID:  <20031231105813.S67155@grond.sourballs.org>
In-Reply-To: <MIEPLLIBMLEEABPDBIEGGEKDFCAA.fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com>
References:  <MIEPLLIBMLEEABPDBIEGGEKDFCAA.fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, fbsd_user wrote:
> Yes, but doing it that way as example,  entering 'apache'  would
> download apache13 when I really wanted apache20.  That logic does
> not follow through, it's only valid for single versions of an
> package.

Yes, it's true that the 'apache' package gets you 1.3.x, and 'apache2'
gets you 2.0.x, and this is not clear from the information listed at
http://www.freebsd.org/ports/www.html.  Perhaps some information could be
added to the apache2 package description so that people know what package
name to use for apache vs. apache2.

In the majority of cases, there aren't separate ports for different
versions of an application, so this problem doesn't exist for them.

It seems to me that making selected package descriptions more descriptive
would be a whole lot safer than making the changes you suggest.


--
David Fleck
david.fleck@mchsi.com



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031231105813.S67155>