ports vs packages

[Alejandro Imass]

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:00 PM, alexus <alexus at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you so much for this wonderful feedback!
>
> One of the things I'm seeing is that unfortunately packages are
> somewhat limited vs ports...
>
> For example:
>
> I'm trying to get Apache httpd + PHP to work, after pkg_add -r php5,
> php5 doesn't have libphp5.so that links Apache and PHP together... so
> unless I'm doing something entirely wrong I basically must use ports
> and nothing else to get the functionality i need...
>

The port in lang/php52 has a build apache module option. Seems weird
to me that the module is not built with the binary distro of the php52
package. It also seems weird that in the port, the apache module
option is not selected by default. Maybe it's because the PHP crowd
seems to have a grudge against the apache module and the maintainer
follows that sentiment? What good is php52 if not to run with Apache
:-)

Yeah I don't like php that much, but IMHO the apache module should be
selected by default if it's detected that Apache is installed on the
system. Maybe you should write the port maintainer and get his take on
the matter.

-- 
Alejandro Imass


> http://alexus.org/
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"