Subject: Re: Apache2 modules?
To: Jeremy C. Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Rick Byers <rb-netbsd@BigScaryChildren.net>
Date: 08/02/2002 18:43:27
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> > Specifically, I'd like to use PHP4 with Apache2. Is Apache2 not
> > reccomended by NetBSD or something? The Apache site says that 2.0.39 is
> The pkgsrc for new packages are submitted by those who use the software
> and have the time, desire and knowledge to "package" it up.
> (I don't think this means that the software is not recommended.)
> Hopefully, you (or someone else) will volunteer their time to package up
> some Apache 2.0 modules.
I have submitted updated packages in the past, and will do so for ap2-php4
if I get a chance to play with it. What I meant was, "since no apache2
modules are available as packages, this indcates to me that Apache2 is not
heavily used by the NetBSD community. Can people in the community offer
me any advice about problems or disadvantages to using Apache2, or are
people just not eager to upgrade?". I was looking for feedback like
"yeah, I keep meaning to make up some ap2-* packages too, they'd be really
usefull" (indicating it would probably be worth my effort to make some
packages), or "apache2 is still somewhat flakey, I don't think its
heavily used yet" (indicating I should just stick with apache1 for now).
Sorry I wasn't more clear, I'll try to make my questions more verbose in
> current-users I believe is wrong list.
I agree it doesn't seem quite right. Can you suggest a more appropriate
list for this type of inquiry? It's really just a general users question,
by no means techinical (so does not belong on tech-pkg). Maybe
netbsd-users would have been more appropriate, but in my experience people
on current-users are much more interested in running the latest software
and in making new packages. It appears to me that current-users is used
for all sorts of general discussion by the community of people using
NetBSD-current. If current-users isn't appropriate for general "anyone
interested in using foo in -current" type discussionions, then maybe
there needs to be a new list.
Anyway, I'm sorry that my post bothered you.