Subject: Re: Apache2 modules?
To: Rick Byers <rb-netbsd@BigScaryChildren.net>
From: Johnny C. Lam <email@example.com>
Date: 08/03/2002 08:02:10
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 06:43:27PM -0400, Rick Byers wrote:
> 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
> the future.
The modules that people seem to want are mod_ssl, mod_perl, mod_php4, and
maybe mod_dav. Of these, mod_ssl and mod_dav are now built statically
into Apache 2.0.x as they are part of the main distribution and are a
standard part of the installation. mod_perl 2.0 is still under development
by the mod_perl authors, and they have yet to release a version for
Apache 2.0. mod_php4 claims not to officially support Apache 2.0 until
version 4.3.0, but I will probably add a ap2-php4 module to pkgsrc when we
update the PHP4 in pkgsrc to 4.2.2, depending on its level of support and
I personally don't use Apache 2.0 yet because Apache 1.3.26 is stable and
has well-tested ap-perl and ap-php4 modules that I use to run my own
websites. But I'm looking forward to making the switch when mod_perl-2.0
and php-4.3.0 are released.
> > 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.
I do actually think that netbsd-users is the appropriate forum for this
type of question because, as you point out, this is a general user question
about using NetBSD. It wouldn't have hurt to post there initially.
-- Johnny Lam <firstname.lastname@example.org>