If there is enough consensus in the community to either ship or provide support for shipping multiple versions of apache within OpenSolaris, then an appropriate symbolic link makes sense. But, I remember a post from David some time back along the lines that there is not enough customer demand for Sun / OpenSolaris community to ship multiple versions of Apache 2.x
- sriram Seema Alevoor wrote: > Arvind Srinivasan wrote: > >> Seema Alevoor wrote: >> >>> Apache status: >>> >>> Open Issues: >>> ------------- >>> - Supporting multiple versions of Apache >>> Should we use >>> /usr/apache2/2.2.4 >>> or >>> /usr/apache2.4 >>> >>> >> /usr/apache2.4 is an option that has been commented on in a previous post >> from >> Jyri. I quote from his post below. >> >> > So for a hypotetical 2.4, presumably there'd be /usr/apache2.4/... >> (stuff deleted) >> >IMO, #1 is not right. Introduces a lot of version clutter at the top >> >/usr level for a single component. Let's not. >> > >> >#2 has the argument going for it that it follows previously approved >> >practice (perl, PHP). The pesky detail is that there is already Apache >> >2.0 in /usr/apache2/. >> >> > > How about adding softlinks to the existing directories like > /usr/apache2/2.2.3/bin -> /usr/apache2/bin > /var/apache2/2.2.3/build -> /var/apache2/build > ? > > I know..this is quite opposite to the usual convention followed ! > But, this way, the existence of multiple versions will be made obvious. > > > -- Seema. > _______________________________________________ > webstack-discuss mailing list > webstack-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/webstack-discuss >
