Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 12:22:55 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Looking for new apache maintainer Message-ID: <20040527162255.GB4740@coe.bosbc.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20040525234836 DOT GA2243 AT coe DOT bosbc DOT com> <40B53400 DOT 668ECCEF AT dessent DOT net> <000b01c443cb$c6c0e950$78d96f83 AT robinson DOT cam DOT ac DOT uk> <40B5B751 DOT 9EB8E456 AT dessent DOT net> <40B60115 DOT CF02EAF3 AT dessent DOT net> <40B60F56 DOT 701B7B46 AT dessent DOT net> <20040527160012 DOT GA14896 AT coe DOT bosbc DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 12:09:29PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Thu, 27 May 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 08:55:02AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: >>>Okay, I'll take that as an enthusiastic request for an apache2 package. >> >>FWIW: Me too! I think an apache2 package would be a very useful >>addition. > >Ditto. > >Perhaps this should be moved to cygwin-apps (which Brian, as all other >maintainers, will have to subscribe to anyway), but one more point >while we're on the subject of Apache: maybe it's time to revisit the >apache postinstall procedure (both the rebase issue and the /var/www >one). FWIW, one idea on the latter is splitting out the documents into >a separate package (apache-docs?), installing over the manual, and >using postinstall to set up the index.html.* files if they aren't >present. This way, "cygcheck -c" won't be confused by the apache >packages anymore. I can elaborate if there's interest. One again, my assumptions catch up with me. I was assuming that a new package maintainer would be rethinking the packaging scheme. Certainly the current scheme could use some improvement. But, yes, if we are going to be discusing this, then we should move to cygwin-apps. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/