In message <20041105113430.B16680@yoda.cubidou.net>
	on Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:34:30 +0100,
	cube@cubidou.net wrote:
> > If ap2-foo is provided separately or apache module for apache2 is
> > always named as "ap2-xxx", this problem could be solved.
> 
> But it's unmanageable.  In the end you get ap-php4, ap2-php4, ap-php5,
> ap2-php5, and now consider you have the option of compiling in openssl
I hope only for apache and apache2.

> In pkgsrc, we strongly push towards compilation from source instead of
> binary packages, but we do (and _have_ to) ship binary packages with
> release, and I even hope we'll start actually maintaining them in the
> short term.
Yes, I understand it.  My (very weak) hope is convenience for user of
pkgsrc to create her/his own binary package.

For example, mod_perl package, she/he could create ap-perl-1.29 binary
pacakge for apache and ap2-perl-1.99.14 binary package for apache2.

For mod_php, she/he can create ap-php4 pacakge for apache, then save
the binary pacakge to another place before create ap-php4 for apache2.

(ap-php isn't good example, once I seen such ap-xxx pacakge... I can't
recall it or it was my misunderstanding.)

> But I'd rather see the CONFLICTS line of apache2 fixed for ap-php :)
Oh no!  ;-(

Cheers.

-- 
Takahiro Kambe <taca@back-street.net>