Alejandro Imass writes:
Hi,
> IMO it's stupid as well and I second Dick's opinion.
You're at least two, great.
> The module doesn't hurt anyone, and reduces confusion. I think that
> PHP is still more heavily deployed on mod_php than on anything else.
> The Apache module should be built by def
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
>> Op 10-1-2012 12:36, Eric Masson schreef:
>>
>>> Dick Hoogendijk writes:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo.
>>>
>>> *You* think it's stupid.
>>
>> Yes, as I wrote: "stupid imo"
>> But th
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
> Op 10-1-2012 12:36, Eric Masson schreef:
>
>> Dick Hoogendijk writes:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo.
>>
>> *You* think it's stupid.
>
> Yes, as I wrote: "stupid imo"
> But thanks again for
Op 10-1-2012 12:36, Eric Masson schreef:
Dick Hoogendijk writes:
Hi,
As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo.
*You* think it's stupid.
Yes, as I wrote: "stupid imo"
But thanks again for your reply. You may be right but I still feel it's
better to *have* the pache mo
Dick Hoogendijk writes:
Hi,
> As I write in another reply: that's true and totally stupid imo.
*You* think it's stupid.
There's not one true way to serve php pages, more and more platforms use
a lightweight httpd daemon like nginx and php-fpm for example.
If you manage many servers, you can b
On 10-01-2012, Tue [10:16:06], Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 09:23, Dmitry Sarkisov wrote:
> > Would be nice to know if there any plans on switching to pkgng or any other
> > pkg management
> > system in a future.
>
> pkgng is under active development with the stated aim of replacing the
Op 9-1-2012 23:00, alexus schreef:
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 lin
On 10/01/2012 09:23, Dmitry Sarkisov wrote:
> Would be nice to know if there any plans on switching to pkgng or any other
> pkg management
> system in a future.
pkgng is under active development with the stated aim of replacing the
current packaging system. If you want to get involved, check ou
On 10-01-2012, Tue [08:51:33], n j wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alejandro Imass wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske
> > wrote:
> >> Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments.
> >> Desktop and casual usage ... ports may serve you better
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alejandro Imass wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
>> Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments.
>> Desktop and casual usage ... ports may serve you better if you like to stay
>> up-to-date rather than only upg
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:00 PM, alexus 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
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
unle
> -Original Message-
> From: aim...@yabarana.com [mailto:aim...@yabarana.com] On Behalf Of
> Alejandro Imass
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 11:37 AM
> To: Devin Teske
> Cc: alexus; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: ports vs packages
>
> On Mon, Ja
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
[...]
> Of course, this is explicit to rather serious production environments.
> Desktop and casual usage ... ports may serve you better if you li
On 1/9/12 6:48 PM, claudiu vasadi wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:17 PM, alexus wrote:
>
>> Ports vs Packages?
>>
>> /usr/ports vs pkg_*
>>
>> pros/cons
>>
>> --
>> http://alexus.org/
>> ___
>> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://li
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Polytropon wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:17:37 -0500, alexus wrote:
Ports vs Packages?
/usr/ports vs pkg_*
pros/cons
In short:
ports:
pro:
most current, if properly updated
build from source (security!)
apply optimi
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:17 PM, alexus wrote:
> Ports vs Packages?
>
> /usr/ports vs pkg_*
>
> pros/cons
>
> --
> http://alexus.org/
> ___
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To un
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of alexus
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 9:18 AM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: ports vs packages
>
> Ports vs Packages?
>
> /usr/ports vs pkg_*
>
On Mon, January 9, 2012 12:17 pm, alexus wrote:
> Ports vs Packages?
>
> /usr/ports vs pkg_*
>
> pros/cons
Ports:
Compiled to *your* specs, for *your* machine.
Faster/smaller downloads.
More options available for customization.
Can apply your own patches.
Packages:
Faster installs.
Known configu
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 13:06:27 -0500, Alejandro Imass wrote:
> Use pre-built binary packages to install very large
> stuff like Gnome, Open Office, etc.
Not an option if your required language settings or
the inclusion or exclusion of desktop bindings (KDE,
Gnome, CUPS) don't match the default option
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:17:37 -0500, alexus wrote:
> Ports vs Packages?
>
> /usr/ports vs pkg_*
>
> pros/cons
In short:
ports:
pro:
most current, if properly updated
build from source (security!)
apply optimization (speed!)
a
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM, alexus wrote:
> Ports vs Packages?
>
> /usr/ports vs pkg_*
>
> pros/cons
The beauty of FBSD: they ultimately update the same DB, heck even Perl
modules installed via the FBSD CPAN shell get updated to that same db.
My rule of thumb: use ports for everything, compi
Jose Borquez wrote:
> Nathan Vidican wrote:
>
>> Jose Borquez wrote:
>>
>>> When installing the same software using either the ports or a package
>>> do they both install in the same locations? For Example installing
>>> Apache from ports on one server and installing Apache from packages
>>> on a
Nathan Vidican wrote:
Jose Borquez wrote:
When installing the same software using either the ports or a package
do they both install in the same locations? For Example installing
Apache from ports on one server and installing Apache from packages
on another server would still use the same l
Jose Borquez wrote:
When installing the same software using either the ports or a package do
they both install in the same locations? For Example installing Apache
from ports on one server and installing Apache from packages on another
server would still use the same locations for both?
Than
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:17:01 -0800
Jose Borquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When installing the same software using either the ports or a
> package do they both install in the same locations? For Example
> installing Apache from ports on one server and installing Apache from
> packages on anoth
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 01:17:01PM -0800, Jose Borquez wrote:
> When installing the same software using either the ports or a package
> do they both install in the same locations? For Example installing
> Apache from ports on one server and installing Apache from packages on
> another server wo
Charles Howse wrote:
Packages are nice for the speed you can install them with,
but can be much
harder to deal with the dependencies unless you use something like
portupgrade (which is much more useful after you've got what you want
installed and want to keep it all up to date).
Well, tha
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 22:41, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Please wrap your lines at 70 characters so your mail can be easily read.
Sorry, my client (Evo 1.4.4) is set to wrap, but for some reason it
occasionally decides not to. It's probably some weird GTK bug.
--
Adam McLaurin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
s
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 07:34:04PM -0400, Adam McLaurin wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 19:25, Charles Howse wrote:
> > Will doing it that way require all the compiling?
>
> No, packages are pre-compiled. Note that you'll sometimes have to wait a little
> longer to get the updated packages, since
> Packages are nice for the speed you can install them with,
> but can be much
> harder to deal with the dependencies unless you use something like
> portupgrade (which is much more useful after you've got what you want
> installed and want to keep it all up to date).
Well, that begs the quest
On Monday 18 August 2003 04:25 pm, Charles Howse wrote:
> > Neither. I'd recommend installing sysutils/portupgrade and using the
> > portinstall option to fetch & install packages (so you always get the
> > latest version). Check the -P and -PP options to portinstall.
> >
> > Note that doing this w
> > Will doing it that way require all the compiling?
>
> No, packages are pre-compiled. Note that you'll sometimes
> have to wait a little longer to get the updated packages,
> since the maintainer has to submit a compiled binary, but
> doesn't always do so immediately after a port is updated
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 19:25, Charles Howse wrote:
> Will doing it that way require all the compiling?
No, packages are pre-compiled. Note that you'll sometimes have to wait a little longer
to get the updated packages, since the maintainer has to submit a compiled binary, but
doesn't always do s
Charles Howse wrote:
I'm confused ( which is not an uncommon occurrence ), let's say I know I
don't need to edit the source code of any of the additional software
that I plan to install, but I want the latest version.
Should I install from ports or sysistall/packages/FTP?
I just installed Midni
> Neither. I'd recommend installing sysutils/portupgrade and using the
> portinstall option to fetch & install packages (so you always get the
> latest version). Check the -P and -PP options to portinstall.
>
> Note that doing this will require you to have an updated ports tree.
> You'll need to c
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 19:14, Charles Howse wrote:
> I'm confused ( which is not an uncommon occurrence ), let's say I know I
> don't need to edit the source code of any of the additional software
> that I plan to install, but I want the latest version.
>
> Should I install from ports or sysistall/
37 matches
Mail list logo
