As David says, I have been thinking of making an apache2 package that doesn't conflict with apache. I have yet to do that for a couple of reasons.
First, we also use the shared core features and apxs also conflicts between the two. I haven't decided whether I want to rename apxs to apxs2 or not. If apxs gets renamed to apxs2 then all other packages that have shared modules will need to be changed to deal with apache2. That is fine for our own custom apache modules, but other developers of apache shared module packages would need to agree with the rename too. Seems that shared core support in openpkg is minimal anyhow. I have submitted a spec file for PHP that adds a shared module, but haven't seen it make it to the sources. Shared core support is very useful for our environment, since we run a lot of different types of web servers and don't like the overhead of having all modules statically built into apache. Then there is the problem of dealing with the "Requires: apache". I really wish there was a way to deal with "OR" statements in spec file requires. That would also be really useful for oracle/oracle-barebone packages. I always have to hack the specfiles when I want to build PHP or perl with oracle-barebone. So at this point I had decided not to make the changes. I was hoping to be able to upgrade all of our apache instances to apache2 with in the next 6 months anyhow. But that doesn't solve the issue of requires statement. Mark Keller Systems Administrator Portland State University On Monday 14 February 2005 2:00, David M. Fetter wrote: > On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 21:51 +0100, Matthias Kurz wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2005, David M. Fetter wrote: > > > We should they conflict? In our environment we actually have specific > > > need to run both versions. We cannot have both installed however due > > > to as far as we can tell only two conflicting files which are a man > > > page and logrotate. Personally, it seems to me that it would be better > > > to rename the conflicting man page and rename the logrotate to > > > logrotate2 thus following the pattern already defined. > > > > There are conflicting files. And this is why i thought, they should > > conflict. Either, this, or someone should fix the conflicts. > > Ah, yes. I believe one of our crew here is working on fixing the > conflicts of which will be submitted sometime in the future. > > > But this is not my real problem. There are some packages, that "Require:" > > apache, and therefor it is compiled all the time. > > Yes, what would be nice is if we could make a Require statement that can > include something like "apache||apache2". That would be helpful in > numerous cases. > > > There is no need for action by anyone, because i said this. For me this > > is currently more or less a "cosmetical" problem. When there is real > > need, i'll speak up again. > > > > > > (mk) > > > > > On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 08:45 +0100, Matthias Kurz wrote: > > > > All said. > > > > > > > > (mk) ______________________________________________________________________ The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org Developer Communication List openpkg-dev@openpkg.org
