Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 00:08:24 -0500 From: "Patrick Bihan-Faou" <patrick@mindstep.com> To: "\"J.C. Frazier\"" <wolfman@csocs.com> Cc: <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ports/15873: New Apache_fp+php+mod_ssl-1.3.9+3.0.12+2.4.8 port. Message-ID: <00e801bf573a$e47f2240$c80aa8c0@local.mindstep.com> References: <200001050050.QAA58586@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, > [...] We have many customers that use > Frontpage Extensions in their pages and mod_dav doesn't cut it, sorry. > Sometimes full extention features are needed by my users such as timers, > counters, text effects, page searches, and form handlers. [...] I agree with the fact that mod_dav is not an alternative to frontpage extensions. By that I mean that they don't address the same problem. There is some overlap in functionality (uploading files to a web server) but the similarities end there. However I would a LOT happier if there was a port for the mod_frontpage module instead of having yet another "apache13-xxx-yyy-zzz-asd-sa-sd-sdf-srd" port. The current situation is already bad enough with the php(3,4), mod_ssl and what not versions. To me the ideal situation would be: - a simple apache port (apache13) - a new port category (maybe) for the apache modules where I could find mod_ssl, mod_php, mod_frontpage, mod_xyz, etc. This way I could choose exactly the apache configuration I need/want. This is exactly why I created a "mod_dav" port as opposed to a "apache-mod_dav-xxx" port. It would be really great if you could do the same with the mod_frontpage module. > Dirk Froemberg wrote: > > > We don't need more apache* ports, but less. ;-) I think we are on the same wavelength... Patrick. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00e801bf573a$e47f2240$c80aa8c0>