> On Mar 3, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Daniel J. Luke <dl...@geeklair.net> wrote: > > On Mar 3, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Juan Manuel Palacios <j...@macports.org> wrote: >> 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. > > I don't think there's a compelling need to keep apache22 around.
I’m sure there’s a lot of people running Apache 2.2 whose systems (probably highly customized configurations) would break if we did that without some kind of transition, because it’d definitely be a backwards-incompatible change > > If there is, I think it's reasonable to have apache2 be the upstream > recommended apache 2 (2.4.x) But this would not be possible without the backwards incompatible change, because even if we introduce apache22, the plain apache2 would move from 2.2 to 2.4, which I don’t think we should do, at least not without some kind of transition. - jmpp > > I would just remove apache24-devel and upgrade the apache2 port to 2.4.x > >> 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…. > > -- > Daniel J. Luke > > > _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
