apache2 location

[Bradley Giesbrecht]

On Mar 1, 2009, at 3:34 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

>
> On Mar 1, 2009, at 03:58, Scott Haneda wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> $ port installed apache*
>>> The following ports are currently installed:
>>> apache @1.3.41_0
>>> apache2 @2.2.11_0 (active)
>>> $ port activate apache @1.3.41_0
>>> --->  Activating apache @1.3.41_0
>>> Error: port activate failed: Image error: /mp/share/man/man1/ 
>>> dbmmanage.1.gz is being used by the active apache2 port.  Please  
>>> deactivate this port first, or use the -f flag to force the  
>>> activation.
>>> $
>>
>> Why does ports care if a man page is shared?  I do not really even  
>> consider it in use.  Forgive my lack of understanding, and  
>> hopefully no one jumps my butt on this idea...
>>
>> Why are man pages part of the process of being registered as  
>> activated? It is a man page, not a binary.  Maybe man pages should  
>> just not be part of this entire chain of checks.
>
> MacPorts has no special knowledge at destroot time that this is a  
> manpage. It treats all files the same.
>
> All files need to be part of the destroot and registered to the port  
> so that "port contents" can show them and "port uninstall" can  
> uninstall them.
>
> You wouldn't want an older manpage provided with the apache (1) port  
> to silently overwrite the newer manpage you already had from the  
> apache2 port. These are the kinds of problems having a destroot  
> solves.

Is it very common to have apache and apache2 installed at the same time?
Looks like they conflict to me. They write the same files.
Shouldn't they just be conflicted so you have to uninstall apache to  
get apache2.

As for perl5, why do p5 man pages exist for yet to be installed p5  
modules?
Is that normal on other systems?

How about moving collisions instead of over writing?

/opt/local/var/macports/collisions/[datetime]/opt/local/share/man/ 
[existing-file]


//Brad