Re: [gentoo-dev] net-www Being Retired

[Doug Goldstein]

I'm actually the maintainer of a couple of Apache modules (currently not 
included in Portage but shortly I'll look to include them when I 
stablize them a bit more) that I have the codebase support both Apache 1 
and Apache 2 through a mess of #DEFINE and ./configure but I did that to 
make it easier for users. With this scheme the package would have to 
appear in two catagories under the same name and it would conflict with 
the other one and provide an ugly mess. Heck.... every package... like 
emerge mod_perl wouldn't even work.. it'd give you an ugly message 
saying which one? www-apache1/mod-perl or www-apache2/mod-perl... Not 
ideal in my book. There's got to be a better way about this.

Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 September 2004 21:10, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>
>>If there's a way to get portage to work better without this kind of
>>splitting, I'd much rather see that happen. Perhaps SLOTting by what
>>it's built for (apache-1/2)? I'm not real clear on the current
>>situation.
>
>
> SLOTing is great when (say) verison 1.2 of a package works with both apache
> and apache2, but it's not a complete solution when you need version 1.2 for
> apache, but version 2.2 for apache2.
>
> We can tell users to use /etc/portage/package.mask, but I want to get this
> stuff working automatically, without the user having to do anything.
>
>
>>Splitting in this way really goes against the whole idea of portage
>>allowing us to integrate versioned packages into one using a combination
>>of USE flags, SLOTs and other tools.
>
>
> I'm open to better suggestions.
>
> Best regards,
> Stu


-- 
Doug Goldstein
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x179106D0
Key fingerprint = 7001 5FBF BACE 9E66 3A1C  55E0 161C FF5C 1791 06D0


--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list