Well. I don't want to start a holy war about CPAN vs. "ports". I really
don't know to much about ports. I don't operate userland FreeBSD boxes too
often -- just lean and mean servers.
But, the thing I particularly like about CPAN is that _ALL_ of the modules are
on _every_ CPAN server. This means that even when the "net" is collapsing on
itself, you can always find a CPAN server that you have connectivity to an get
the job done. "ports" wasn't like that the last time I had a look, but it
could be now... Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
"ports" are for running applications on FreeBSD... It allows for patches to be
applied post retreival and various things like that. The reason is because
these apps may not have been written for FreeBSD originally and the patches
are needed to make them compilable.
What we are talking about are Apache modules. If we need a post patching
system for Apache modules to run with Apache, I think there is a problem that
goes much deeper :-)
But.... WAHOO (We All Have Our Opinions).
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Except that we did. It's been something 1st brought up and considered
> at least 3 years ago, except we used the FreeBSD "ports" analogy,
> which is much better IMO :)
--
Theo Schlossnagle
1024D/A8EBCF8F/13BD 8C08 6BE2 629A 527E 2DC2 72C2 AD05 A8EB CF8F
2047R/33131B65/71 F7 95 64 49 76 5D BA 3D 90 B9 9F BE 27 24 E7
