> On Mar 3, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandes...@macports.org> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 3, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Daniel J. Luke <dl...@geeklair.net> wrote: >> >> On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:05 AM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandes...@macports.org> wrote: >>> On Mar 3, 2016, at 00:18, Juan Manuel Palacios <j...@macports.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Apache 2 rev-bumped, cf. r146274. >>>> >>>> On a side note, and if I may in this same thread, do we have any policy >>>> for not moving the Apache 2.4 port out of “dev”? Not too sure when it >>>> became the recommended release series by the ASF, but it certainly isn’t >>>> dev any longer. >>> >>> There's a ticket you can read. We can't just replace the current apache2 >>> port with the current apache24-devel port because it also changes the >>> directory layout. >> >> I think it's a mistake to tie upgrading the apache port to 2.4.x and >> changing the layout (we could just do a simple version bump with the current >> port + make modifications to any apache modules that need them and tackle >> changing the layout separately). > > Yes I think you've said that before. I don't disagree at this point, but I'm > not working on this issue right now. Someone else is welcome to.
The approach I suggested wouldn’t change layout in any way. apache2 would be obsoleted and replaced by apache22, which would be the exact same port as the previous apache2. Parallel to that, apache24-devel would be obsoleted and replaced by apache24, which again would be the exact same port as the one it’s replacing. This would create suite of Apache ports similar to what we now have for MySQL, i.e. mysql51, mysql55, mysql56, etc. So both ports would essentially just be renamed, preserving everything about them. Do you guys see a problem with that? I could do it if you don’t…. -jmpp _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
