> > Yes, i saw your modifications to the php package, and i'm going to use it. > Waited to ask why the change was not accepted until i really know, that > it works. >
Okay, thanks for the information! > > > > 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. > > But then, one could work with a virtual package. The packages require e.g. > HTTPD and apache as well as apache2 provide it. They would also conflict > "automatically", then. But i could not make this suggestion, because David > told you need both apaches in parallel. > A virtual package seems like a good idea for solving the requires problems. I just don't see a great way to deal with using both apache and apache2 at the same time. Right now we require apache2 only for one server and we just deal with that as a one off case. As I mentioned before we should be able to use apache2 for all of our webserver instances within the next six months. Apache 2 and the pre-fork mpm seem to be pretty stable on *NIX. So dealing with the one off for now isn't too big of a deal. I suppose that doesn't help other people that do need it though. Mark Keller Systems Administrator Portland State University ______________________________________________________________________ The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org Developer Communication List openpkg-dev@openpkg.org
