Re: lang/php5 port
--On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 11:25:02 -0500 Tom Worster f...@thefsb.org wrote: If you're maintaining your own workstation, that might be an educational experience. If you're maintaining servers, that could cause an outage while you try to remember what your edits were. one has to remember the port's configuration whichever method is used. my memory isn't good so i keep detailed notes. recording in these notes which checkboxes in the config pseudo-gui were checked and unchecked is not convenient. i'm not sure i wouldn't prefer editing a file and keeping a diff with my notes, as i do for the other config files i change. Your choices for the config of a port are saved in the ports system. (Look in /var/db/ports/ if you're curious.) Unless you need to make some changes, they will be pre-selected each time you update the port. (There are some exceptions to this, where ports will always prompt for the config.) If you think a port is incorrectly built (unnecessary dependencies, for example) there's nothing wrong with submitting a PR and asking the maintainer to update the port. If the maintainer rejects your changes, you can always edit locally later, but your submission could benefit thousands of people. IOW, if you're the smartest guy on the block, please don't keep it to yourself. i'm certainly not smart enough to know what might be a better way to design ports like php. but one thing seems odd to me. i ended up with dozens of ports installed that appeared to use nothing but the same php-5.2.8.tar.bz2 distfile. relative to what i'm used to with php (i.e. manual configure, compile, install) this seems a bit untidy and i'm nervous what it might mean for maintenance. Php used to be one monolithic port. The problem was that it required a gazillion options, and many people didn't want anything but the base install. So php#-extensions was created to simplify the install of the base port and make the options more flexible. For example, if a new extension comes out, you can simply install it. No need to reinstall the entire php port. You needn't worry about updating. That's all taken care of in the ports system. When you run portupgrade or portmaster, the extensions ports that need to be updated will be. my guess is that this approach allows the ports framework to handle conditional installation of dependent software on a relatively fine-grained basis depending which options the user chooses. that's a nice feature to have. but wouldn't it be nicer if were just one port with dependencies based off its configuration? I think you can make a solid argument either way. seems that would reduce clutter in the ports tree too and maybe effort for the ports maintainer. I don't think we are worried about clutter in the ports tree. There are over 16,000 ports (and rising), so another 10 or 20 in php is a fairly insignificant increase. -- Paul Schmehl (pa...@utdallas.edu) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
Re: lang/php5 port
Tom Worster wrote: i'm certainly not smart enough to know what might be a better way to design ports like php. but one thing seems odd to me. i ended up with dozens of ports installed that appeared to use nothing but the same php-5.2.8.tar.bz2 distfile. relative to what i'm used to with php (i.e. manual configure, compile, install) this seems a bit untidy and i'm nervous what it might mean for maintenance. Absolutely not. Don't be confused that the various php5-foo ports all use the same distfile: it's a big lump of code, and the individual modules selectively compile bits of it. Don't be perturbed that you have a large number of ports installed -- after all a port is ultimately just a set of files treated together as a block. This just means you're getting finer grained control over what you've got installed on your machine. No -- the current design of the way PHP is dealt with in ports is brilliant. Consider the alternative -- in fact the way it used to be done. As the maintainer of the port of a PHP application I need to ensure certain functionality is compiled into PHP for that application to work. Unless the functionality I need happens to be a strict subset of what is provided by default, I have to create and maintain slave ports of php4 and php5 with the appropriate configuration flags. Which is a PITA. Now, ask yourself what happens if I want to install two different PHP applications simultaneously? OK, now we need another set of PHP slave ports to support that combination. Before you know it, the ports tree is buried in a combinatorial explosion of different PHP slave ports all with slightly different combinations of options. No one understands quite what they really should be installing in any particular circumstance. Because the ports are now too difficult to use, standard advice on mailing lists is 'compile and install by hand.' Oh, the embarrassment! Compare this to the system we have now. PHP application depends on the foo, bar and baz modules. php5-foo and php5-bar are already installed, so now we just get php5-baz installed automatically to fulfil the dependencies as a routine effect of installing the app. Now add yet another app that depends on baz and quux. php5-baz is already installed, so just the php5-quux module is installed as a dependency. Everyone is happy. From the port maintainer's point of view, the setup is particularly sweet too. At a minimum to declare that your port uses PHP and needs modules foo, bar and baz, all you need to do is add a line: USE_PHP = foo bar baz to the port's Makefile. In a lot of cases, that really is /all/ you have to do. Even the more complicated stuff with OPTIONS dialogues or that use different module sets for php4 vs. php5 are only slightly harder to deal with. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: lang/php5 port
On 12/17/08 10:34 AM, Paul Schmehl pa...@utdallas.edu wrote: --On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 08:18:47 +0100 Mel fbsd.questi...@rachie.is-a-geek.net wrote: ... Though a lot of things can be handled by: 1) environment variables (temporary) 2) /etc/make.conf (permanent) 3) Makefile.local (permanent, inclusion is at bsd.port.pre.mk stage which allows you to override hardcoded settings) It is needed in some cases to edit the makefile to fix things or remove dependencies that the maintainer didn't find necessary to remove or even to fix bugs. I agree with you with one caveat. Make sure that you know what you're doing before you do this, and be prepared for the consequences. For example, if you edit any files in a port, they will be overwritten when you update your ports. That means you'll have to make those edits again. thanks. i was going to ask about that. If you're maintaining your own workstation, that might be an educational experience. If you're maintaining servers, that could cause an outage while you try to remember what your edits were. one has to remember the port's configuration whichever method is used. my memory isn't good so i keep detailed notes. recording in these notes which checkboxes in the config pseudo-gui were checked and unchecked is not convenient. i'm not sure i wouldn't prefer editing a file and keeping a diff with my notes, as i do for the other config files i change. If you think a port is incorrectly built (unnecessary dependencies, for example) there's nothing wrong with submitting a PR and asking the maintainer to update the port. If the maintainer rejects your changes, you can always edit locally later, but your submission could benefit thousands of people. IOW, if you're the smartest guy on the block, please don't keep it to yourself. i'm certainly not smart enough to know what might be a better way to design ports like php. but one thing seems odd to me. i ended up with dozens of ports installed that appeared to use nothing but the same php-5.2.8.tar.bz2 distfile. relative to what i'm used to with php (i.e. manual configure, compile, install) this seems a bit untidy and i'm nervous what it might mean for maintenance. my guess is that this approach allows the ports framework to handle conditional installation of dependent software on a relatively fine-grained basis depending which options the user chooses. that's a nice feature to have. but wouldn't it be nicer if were just one port with dependencies based off its configuration? seems that would reduce clutter in the ports tree too and maybe effort for the ports maintainer. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: lang/php5 port
--On Wednesday, December 17, 2008 08:18:47 +0100 Mel fbsd.questi...@rachie.is-a-geek.net wrote: On Wednesday 17 December 2008 04:33:51 Paul Schmehl wrote: --On December 16, 2008 7:33:31 PM -0600 Steve Bertrand st...@ibctech.ca wrote: One of the reasons I've had to edit Makefile manually was because a client needed JPEG support. At the time, `make config' didn't provide that option. You should *never* need to edit a Makefile in a port. (Well, extremely rarely.) More often then you think. I encourage understanding the system and editing to suit your needs. It's a transparent system, unlike many others out there, so you might as well make good use of it. Though a lot of things can be handled by: 1) environment variables (temporary) 2) /etc/make.conf (permanent) 3) Makefile.local (permanent, inclusion is at bsd.port.pre.mk stage which allows you to override hardcoded settings) It is needed in some cases to edit the makefile to fix things or remove dependencies that the maintainer didn't find necessary to remove or even to fix bugs. I agree with you with one caveat. Make sure that you know what you're doing before you do this, and be prepared for the consequences. For example, if you edit any files in a port, they will be overwritten when you update your ports. That means you'll have to make those edits again. If you're maintaining your own workstation, that might be an educational experience. If you're maintaining servers, that could cause an outage while you try to remember what your edits were. If you think a port is incorrectly built (unnecessary dependencies, for example) there's nothing wrong with submitting a PR and asking the maintainer to update the port. If the maintainer rejects your changes, you can always edit locally later, but your submission could benefit thousands of people. IOW, if you're the smartest guy on the block, please don't keep it to yourself. -- Paul Schmehl (pa...@utdallas.edu) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
Re: lang/php5 port
On 12/17/08 1:05 PM, Matthew Seaman m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk wrote: Tom Worster wrote: i'm certainly not smart enough to know what might be a better way to design ports like php. but one thing seems odd to me. i ended up with dozens of ports installed that appeared to use nothing but the same php-5.2.8.tar.bz2 distfile. relative to what i'm used to with php (i.e. manual configure, compile, install) this seems a bit untidy and i'm nervous what it might mean for maintenance. Absolutely not. Don't be confused that the various php5-foo ports all use the same distfile: it's a big lump of code, and the individual modules selectively compile bits of it. Don't be perturbed that you have a large number of ports installed -- after all a port is ultimately just a set of files treated together as a block. This just means you're getting finer grained control over what you've got installed on your machine. fair enough. this seems analogous to the long list of options i used to use on ./configure when installing from the php tarball. No -- the current design of the way PHP is dealt with in ports is brilliant. Consider the alternative -- in fact the way it used to be done. relative to other ways of designing ports i can accept that the current one is better. my point of view, however, is someone transitioning from manual install to using lang/php5-extensions. it's new to me and i need to learn. the conversation here has been very helpful (thanks again, all). at the same time i'm transitioning from 6.2 to 7.0 and learning how to use freebsd-update and portmaster. previously, upgrading freebsd was such a big project that i'd do it on the production servers very infrequently and reinstalling all the apps from scratch after os upgrade seemed acceptable. but now it seems silly not to take advantage of the new automation tools for freebsd and ports updates. hence learning to use ports for everything seems like the way to go. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
lang/php5 port
is there any documentation or a helpful website for how to use ports to install php5? i'm used to compiling it with a pretty long configuration command for all the optional bits i need, e.g. --with-dom --with-dom-xslt --enable-dom --with-pear --with-gd etc. etc. on and on. i'm unclear how these options are handled in freebsd ports. is it a matter of identifying lots of individual ports, one for each of the configuration command options i'd normally use? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: lang/php5 port
Tom Worster wrote: is there any documentation or a helpful website for how to use ports to install php5? i'm used to compiling it with a pretty long configuration command for all the optional bits i need, e.g. --with-dom --with-dom-xslt --enable-dom --with-pear --with-gd etc. etc. on and on. i'm unclear how these options are handled in freebsd ports. is it a matter of identifying lots of individual ports, one for each of the configuration command options i'd normally use? From what I can tell (and how I normally do it) is simply put your familiar command line compile args in the Makefile within the ports tree. If you follow the flow of the existing Makefile, it should become clear as to how to add your custom args. Simply: # cd /usr/ports/lang/php5 # ee (or if you please 'vi') Makefile # make install [clean] ...any problems, report back. Ironically, I just did this type of PHP install today. Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: lang/php5 port
Tom Worster wrote: is there any documentation or a helpful website for how to use ports to install php5? i'm used to compiling it with a pretty long configuration command for all the optional bits i need, e.g. --with-dom --with-dom-xslt --enable-dom --with-pear --with-gd etc. etc. on and on. i'm unclear how these options are handled in freebsd ports. is it a matter of identifying lots of individual ports, one for each of the configuration command options i'd normally use? Run make config on the php port to see if any configuration options you need are mentioned there. I normally utlise the php-extensions port - run make config in there for options. Cheers, Brett. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: lang/php5 port
Brett Davidson wrote: Tom Worster wrote: is there any documentation or a helpful website for how to use ports to install php5? i'm used to compiling it with a pretty long configuration command for all the optional bits i need, e.g. --with-dom --with-dom-xslt --enable-dom --with-pear --with-gd etc. etc. on and on. i'm unclear how these options are handled in freebsd ports. is it a matter of identifying lots of individual ports, one for each of the configuration command options i'd normally use? Run make config on the php port to see if any configuration options you need are mentioned there. I normally utlise the php-extensions port - run make config in there for options. One of the reasons I've had to edit Makefile manually was because a client needed JPEG support. At the time, `make config' didn't provide that option. You make a couple of valuable points however. It would be easier if the OP's demands could be met with your method. Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: lang/php5 port
install the options from lang/php5-extensions . Gives you tons of options for php5. Amitabh On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Tom Worster f...@thefsb.org wrote: is there any documentation or a helpful website for how to use ports to install php5? i'm used to compiling it with a pretty long configuration command for all the optional bits i need, e.g. --with-dom --with-dom-xslt --enable-dom --with-pear --with-gd etc. etc. on and on. i'm unclear how these options are handled in freebsd ports. is it a matter of identifying lots of individual ports, one for each of the configuration command options i'd normally use? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: lang/php5 port
Steve Bertrand wrote: Brett Davidson wrote: Tom Worster wrote: is there any documentation or a helpful website for how to use ports to install php5? i'm used to compiling it with a pretty long configuration command for all the optional bits i need, e.g. --with-dom --with-dom-xslt --enable-dom --with-pear --with-gd etc. etc. on and on. i'm unclear how these options are handled in freebsd ports. is it a matter of identifying lots of individual ports, one for each of the configuration command options i'd normally use? Run make config on the php port to see if any configuration options you need are mentioned there. I normally utlise the php-extensions port - run make config in there for options. One of the reasons I've had to edit Makefile manually was because a client needed JPEG support. At the time, `make config' didn't provide that option. You make a couple of valuable points however. It would be easier if the OP's demands could be met with your method. Steve php-extensions supports jpg in the make config options - I use that too. It's a really elegant way of configuring almost every php option we need. Brett. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: lang/php5 port
Brett Davidson wrote: Steve Bertrand wrote: Brett Davidson wrote: Run make config on the php port to see if any configuration options you need are mentioned there. I normally utlise the php-extensions port - run make config in there for options. One of the reasons I've had to edit Makefile manually was because a client needed JPEG support. At the time, `make config' didn't provide that option. You make a couple of valuable points however. It would be easier if the OP's demands could be met with your method. php-extensions supports jpg in the make config options - I use that too. It's a really elegant way of configuring almost every php option we need. Thanks Brett, Even though I wasn't the original poster, I certainly learnt something here. This is a perfect example of how external application support can be provided willingly and thoughtfully through our mailing list, via members who do actually care. Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: lang/php5 port
Paul Schmehl wrote: --On December 16, 2008 7:33:31 PM -0600 Steve Bertrand st...@ibctech.ca wrote: One of the reasons I've had to edit Makefile manually was because a client needed JPEG support. At the time, `make config' didn't provide that option. You should *never* need to edit a Makefile in a port. (Well, extremely rarely.) Usually the options are provided. Optionally you can add them on the commandline like this: make -dwith_enable-foo -dwith_disable-bar. These are the questions that I never would ask, as for years, I always installed from source, never ports. If you don't find something you're expecting in a port, and you can't get an answer on this list, email the port maintainer, whose email address will always be in the port's Makefile. I'm glad there are people who still answer 3rd party software questions here. Normally, I'd just hack about until it worked. It's great to know there is such wide-spread support here. Hopefully, new questions will always be asked, and there will always be those dedicated people who are always lying low, reading, ready to provide a response in their field... (seriously) Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: lang/php5 port
--On December 16, 2008 7:33:31 PM -0600 Steve Bertrand st...@ibctech.ca wrote: One of the reasons I've had to edit Makefile manually was because a client needed JPEG support. At the time, `make config' didn't provide that option. You should *never* need to edit a Makefile in a port. (Well, extremely rarely.) Usually the options are provided. Optionally you can add them on the commandline like this: make -dwith_enable-foo -dwith_disable-bar. In the case of major ports such as lang/php5, the options are almost always available somehow. Jpeg support, for example, is in php5-extensions. If you don't find something you're expecting in a port, and you can't get an answer on this list, email the port maintainer, whose email address will always be in the port's Makefile. Paul Schmehl (pa...@utdallas.edu) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
Re: lang/php5 port
On 12/16/08 8:10 PM, Amitabh Kant amitabhk...@gmail.com wrote: install the options from lang/php5-extensions . Gives you tons of options for php5. thanks for the pointer. i think i found everything i needed in there. i'm not sure how i feel about having 55 more ports installed than i would have if i'd installed from php tarball, especially with regard to updates, but i'll cross that bridge when i come to it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: lang/php5 port
On 12/16/08 8:33 PM, Steve Bertrand st...@ibctech.ca wrote: One of the reasons I've had to edit Makefile manually was because a client needed JPEG support. At the time, `make config' didn't provide that option. You make a couple of valuable points however. It would be easier if the OP's demands could be met with your method. options such as jpeg, png, freetype were not offered by make config in lang/php-extensions when i tried it today in 7.0-RELEASE-p6. however, these extensions that i do need were included with the gd option. so, for now, i don't think i need to edit the Makefile. thanks again for the helpful replys. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: lang/php5 port
--On December 16, 2008 10:09:03 PM -0600 Tom Worster f...@thefsb.org wrote: On 12/16/08 8:10 PM, Amitabh Kant amitabhk...@gmail.com wrote: install the options from lang/php5-extensions . Gives you tons of options for php5. thanks for the pointer. i think i found everything i needed in there. i'm not sure how i feel about having 55 more ports installed than i would have if i'd installed from php tarball, especially with regard to updates, but i'll cross that bridge when i come to it. When you run portupgrade or portmaster, if there's updates to some of the extensions, those updates will be done at the same time. (There are usually many.) The only gotcha is that if you need to uninstall php, the extensions don't uninstall as well. You have to either pkg_delete them or go into each port and run make deinstall. Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. ** WARNING: Check the headers before replying
Re: lang/php5 port
On Wednesday 17 December 2008 04:33:51 Paul Schmehl wrote: --On December 16, 2008 7:33:31 PM -0600 Steve Bertrand st...@ibctech.ca wrote: One of the reasons I've had to edit Makefile manually was because a client needed JPEG support. At the time, `make config' didn't provide that option. You should *never* need to edit a Makefile in a port. (Well, extremely rarely.) More often then you think. I encourage understanding the system and editing to suit your needs. It's a transparent system, unlike many others out there, so you might as well make good use of it. Though a lot of things can be handled by: 1) environment variables (temporary) 2) /etc/make.conf (permanent) 3) Makefile.local (permanent, inclusion is at bsd.port.pre.mk stage which allows you to override hardcoded settings) It is needed in some cases to edit the makefile to fix things or remove dependencies that the maintainer didn't find necessary to remove or even to fix bugs. -- Mel Problem with today's modular software: they start with the modules and never get to the software part. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: lang/php5 port
On Wednesday 17 December 2008 05:16:34 Tom Worster wrote: On 12/16/08 8:33 PM, Steve Bertrand st...@ibctech.ca wrote: One of the reasons I've had to edit Makefile manually was because a client needed JPEG support. At the time, `make config' didn't provide that option. You make a couple of valuable points however. It would be easier if the OP's demands could be met with your method. options such as jpeg, png, freetype were not offered by make config in lang/php-extensions when i tried it today in 7.0-RELEASE-p6. however, these extensions that i do need were included with the gd option. Exactly, there are no jpeg_* functions and is no jpeg module for php. Image functions are handled by gd and there's also a PECL extension to work with ImageMagick. Read more about PECL here: http://pecl.php.net/ and all PECL ports for FreeBSD are named pecl-*. So: make -C /usr/ports search name=pecl-* |less will give you an overview of the PECL ports. -- Mel Problem with today's modular software: they start with the modules and never get to the software part. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: lang/php5 port present no options within sysinstall
I figured out that doing make config in /usr/ports/lang/php5 would bring up the screen the handbook was referring to. I'm guessing perhaps that somehow sysinstall sets that configuration for me automatically. eg: when I install apache web server I would assume that sysinstally would set the option to build mod_php. I was given the impression that I had to build apache and php5 from source which is something I'd be willing to do but like I was hinting at in my previous message I remember a time when sysinstall would just sort of do it all for me. Then again, I think that might have been through some apache+mod_php type package available in a previous versions. -Balin On 7/17/07, Lowell Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Balin Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: According to your handbook under the Apache HTTP Server section sysinstall is supposed to present me with an OPTIONS menu when I try to install lang/php5 but it never has and I've been pulling my hair out trying reinstall from scratch, etc. I noticed that I can build php from /usr/ports/lang/php5 but I remember a time when adding mod_php to an apache install wasn't nearly this complicated. Any thoughts? You probably set the options already. Try make config and see man ports for a more detailed explanation. [Your explanation isn't clear enough for me to understand exactly what you're trying to do, so my advice is unfortunately general.] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
lang/php5 port present no options within sysinstall
According to your handbook under the Apache HTTP Server section sysinstall is supposed to present me with an OPTIONS menu when I try to install lang/php5 but it never has and I've been pulling my hair out trying reinstall from scratch, etc. I noticed that I can build php from /usr/ports/lang/php5 but I remember a time when adding mod_php to an apache install wasn't nearly this complicated. Any thoughts? -Balin Hansen on step at a time ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lang/php5 port present no options within sysinstall
Balin Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: According to your handbook under the Apache HTTP Server section sysinstall is supposed to present me with an OPTIONS menu when I try to install lang/php5 but it never has and I've been pulling my hair out trying reinstall from scratch, etc. I noticed that I can build php from /usr/ports/lang/php5 but I remember a time when adding mod_php to an apache install wasn't nearly this complicated. Any thoughts? You probably set the options already. Try make config and see man ports for a more detailed explanation. [Your explanation isn't clear enough for me to understand exactly what you're trying to do, so my advice is unfortunately general.] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
