| 1 |
On Mon, 2003-05-26 at 23:18, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote: |
| 2 |
> (-) Should apache2 really be installed as default on ~x86 given the number |
| 3 |
> of problems that myself and other users on forums have suffered, |
| 4 |
> especially, when the apache2 flag is unset? I realise that use flags do |
| 5 |
> not determine package installation but only optional support but this is |
| 6 |
> to provide some food for thought. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Further to my last email I'd like to add the following. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
(-) At the moment, apache and apache2 are under the same package name |
| 11 |
apache. Perhaps, this should be modified to be two packages slotted |
| 12 |
differently? This would provide the following benefits. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
-- It will provide the criterion of choice without ambiguity for |
| 15 |
something as critical as a webserver and will not deceptively put a |
| 16 |
certain version on when the user is expecting another. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- It will remove the need to inject a stub for apache2 when using |
| 19 |
apache1 as I had to do. Injecting of stubs really should not be |
| 20 |
necessary under normal circumstances on ~x86 unless using hardmasked |
| 21 |
packages. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- It will prevent apache2 being recompiled and installed when executing |
| 24 |
emerge -e world when in fact the user wishes to use apache1 which has |
| 25 |
happened to me. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Once again, your thoughts are welcome. I'm not promoting this as a |
| 28 |
course of action but merely wish for the best resolution to be |
| 29 |
achieved. The current state of affairs is inoptimal to say the least as |
| 30 |
illustrated by this email and my previous one with same subject. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
With regards |
| 33 |
Dhruba Bandopadhyay |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives