Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

As a macports maintainer myself, as well as someone who is on the Apache httpd project itself, I volunteer to help out with this. -- Jim Jagielski Brief? Mobile > On Mar 3, 2016, at 7:29 PM, Marius Schamschula wrote: > > I agree that it’s time to do something about

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

I agree that it’s time to do something about apache. The ticket bellow is four years old, and I added myself to the CCs 21 months ago… As someone that has used apache 2.4.x since 2012 (my old hmug.org builds), and under MacPorts as apache24-devel for over two years (although I’m down to a

Re: [146276] trunk/dports/databases

> On Mar 3, 2016, at 12:14 AM, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote: > > Bradley, > > I think you and I already discussed this in some thread, but I can’t remember > right now… > > What’s the point of the mysql5 port now a-days? I’d say it’s redundant with > mysql51, but not even,

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

> On Mar 3, 2016, at 12:09 AM, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote: >> On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:35 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> On Mar 3, 2016, at 00:18, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote: >>> >>> Apache 2 rev-bumped, cf. r146274. >>> >>> On a side

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

On Mar 3, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote: > 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

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

> On Mar 3, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > > On Mar 3, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote: >> The approach I suggested wouldn’t change layout in any way. apache2 would be >> obsoleted and replaced by apache22, which would be the

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

On Mar 3, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Juan Manuel Palacios 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

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

> On Mar 3, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> >> On Mar 3, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >> >> On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:05 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> On Mar 3, 2016, at 00:18, Juan Manuel Palacios

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

> On Mar 3, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > > On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:05 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> On Mar 3, 2016, at 00:18, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote: >>> >>> Apache 2 rev-bumped, cf. r146274. >>> >>> On a side note,

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:05 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Mar 3, 2016, at 00:18, Juan Manuel Palacios 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

Re: [146276] trunk/dports/databases

Bradley, I think you and I already discussed this in some thread, but I can’t remember right now… > Modified: trunk/dports/databases/mysql5/Portfile (146275 => 146276) > > --- trunk/dports/databases/mysql5/Portfile2016-03-03 06:16:58 UTC (rev > 146275) > +++

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

Yeah, that I understand, we keep versioned ports for other packages too, e.g. mysql55, mysql56, mysql57, and other examples. And we don’t replace one with the other for a myriad of reasons. So we could deprecate the apache24-devel port and create apache24, maybe even also deprecating apache2

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

On Mar 3, 2016, at 00:18, Juan Manuel Palacios 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