[22490] trunk/dports/www/apache2/Portfile

[Blair Zajac]

James Berry wrote:
> 
> On Mar 3, 2007, at 1:48 AM, Randall Wood wrote:
> 
>> Is this +no_startupitem variant really smart?
>>
>> I recently had a request to add a +without_startupitem variant to a 
>> port I maintain and rejected the request; since startupitems simply 
>> enable a port to be started at boot time, but do not cause a port to 
>> be booted at start time, it simply seems stupid to deliberately 
>> cripple a server port such that a user would have to reinstall it if 
>> they wanted to start the port at boot time later.
>>
>> BTW: If the variant is to be retained, can it be named 
>> +without_startupitem instead?
> 
> Unless I'm missing something, I see no reason whatsoever for the 
> no_startupitem variant, or anything like it.
> Using the startup item strategy, we have two cases, systemstarter (pre 
> tiger) and launchd (tiger++):
> 
> SystemStarter: The code generated by port for system starter 
> automatically looks for an enable flag from /etc/hostconfig, and this is 
> -NO- by default. So by default the port won't be run.
> 
> Launchd: Likewise, the launchd.plist file generated for a port is not 
> enabled by default, so by default the server won't be run.
> 
> The only reason I see for having a +server variant in some cases is if 
> building the server is way too onerous (like perhaps in the case of 
> mysql where somebody just wants to build the client but not the server). 
> Still this is debatable.

I still don't need that stuff installed on the system at all for this 
use of MacPorts, even if it isn't enabled by default.

Definitely not a standard use of MacPorts, but I have a client that 
ships Firewire/USB drives with a MacPorts install in /Volumes/SOMENAME/. 
  People plugin in the drive, launch a Python app which starts Apache 
and MySQL.

Regards,
Blair

-- 
Blair Zajac, Ph.D.
<blair at orcaware.com>
Subversion training, consulting and support
http://www.orcaware.com/svn/