Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On May 23, 2012, at 16:39, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote: > >> What is the argument for apache2 to continue violating mtree? > > The only one I can think of is that tons of other ports currently assume > that's the layout. Thus changing the apache2 layout requires changing tons of > ports in unison. > > If we instead made a new apache24 port we would be free to give it any layout > we wanted, and then over time adapt all the other ports to depend on apache24 > instead of apache2. It would still be an unpleasant time for users of those > ports until all of them are converted and apache2 is deprecated.
We could also do another thing : 1) keep the layout as it is now and upgrade completely to 2.4.x as was posited by you -Ryan- in a previous post. 2) work on a longterm project where we gradually find every port that assumes the current layout and convert them 3) after testing (2) make a _BIG_ _BANG_ upgrading from the present layout to a layout that doesn't violate mtree I find it of more value to get 2.4.x into the tree than to wait any longer for a new layour which we don't have any time frame for. We are already a couple of months late in releasing 2.4.x to the public. :-) -- Bjarne D Mathiesen København N ; Danmark ; Europa ---------------------------------------------------------------------- denne besked er skrevet i et totalt M$-frit miljø MacOS X 10.7.3 Lion ; 2.8GHz Intel Core i7 ; 16GB 1067MHz DDR3 _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
