Date: Thu, 24 Jul 97 12:10:09 -0500 From: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <lists@tar.com> To: "Joshua Fielden" <shaggy@houseofduck.dyn.ml.org>, "Shawn Ramsey" <shawn@luke.cpl.net> Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Apache and Ports Policies in General Message-ID: <199707241710.MAA04110@ns.tar.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Ramsey 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 think the souce is as easy as the port to compile. Just type ./Configure >; make ; make install. :) I agree with both these statements. In this case we should just do away with the "port" altogether ;) But, unless I'm mistaken, there is one complication. If you already have an earlier version of apache installed from the ports collection, the FreeBSD port "patches" apache to use directories and other configuration options that are different from the stock apache distribution. Now, if you want to upgrade to the current version of apache as you suggest, but using the stock apache distribution, you have to either change your existing directory structure and accept a different configuration mix, or go in and hand patch the file Configuration to match what you had before. Granted, this is not the end of the world, but it sure makes having used the "ports" collection a lot less convenient.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707241710.MAA04110>