#17077: Update www/varnish to 2.0.1 -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- Reporter: macports@sanityinc.com | Owner: pmq@macports.org Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Port Updates Component: ports | Version: 1.6.0 Resolution: | Keywords: Port: varnish | -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- Changes (by blb@macports.org): * owner: macports-tickets@lists.macosforge.org => pmq@macports.org * port: www/varnish => varnish -- Ticket URL: <http://trac.macports.org/ticket/17077#comment:1> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for Mac OS

#17077: Update www/varnish to 2.0.1 -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- Reporter: macports@sanityinc.com | Owner: pmq@macports.org Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Port Updates Component: ports | Version: 1.6.0 Resolution: | Keywords: Port: varnish | -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- Comment(by macports@sanityinc.com): I'd vote for keeping a single port, even though I will personally need to update my configs. This *is* the new stable version, after all, and although the VCL syntax isn't backwards-compatible, I'd have thought people would want their ports to be updated to the latest stable versions by default. The varnish experts who see that their varnish port will be update to 2.x can always choose not to upgrade, and they can use activate/deactivate to switch between installed versions. The exception is where the port provides a service that is directly used by user-written applications that might get broken, which is where version-splitting can make sense (e.g. with postgresql-8.x), so that multiple versions can be run in parallel. I think it boils down to the following question: is it likely that a given machine will need both Varnish 1.x and 2.x installed simultaneously? If yes, then split the ports. Otherwise, stick with one. I'd guess at "no". Just my 2c -- I can live with whatever you pick, and thanks maintaining this port in the first place! -- Ticket URL: <http://trac.macports.org/ticket/17077#comment:3> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for Mac OS

#17077: Update www/varnish to 2.0.1 -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- Reporter: macports@sanityinc.com | Owner: pmq@macports.org Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: Normal | Milestone: Port Updates Component: ports | Version: 1.6.0 Resolution: fixed | Keywords: Port: varnish | -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- Comment(by pmq@macports.org): Arg, sorry: I edited the wrong textarea and instead of adding a comment I ended up overwriting your original bug comment... -- Ticket URL: <http://trac.macports.org/ticket/17077#comment:5> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for Mac OS