On 26 Jun, 2007, at 11:42, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, at 10:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I don't think there is an argument against it; it is just that no one has done it yet. It seems like a perfectly acceptable thing to do, but it hasonly been talked about and never done.I'm not particularly interested in mysql, but creating a potential - server portfile took less time than I've already spent on this thread.
I had been against it before, on the basis that the client and server ports would install the same binaries--but of course that objection was wrong, since there's no need to install them twice if one depends on the other.
This looks like a good solution, although I'd suggest that the mysql5 port get a post-activate message to the effect of "if you want to run a mysql5 server on this computer, install mysql5-server too"
Chris
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
