[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libapache2-mod-auth-ldap

On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 16:12 +0100, Torsten Schlabach wrote:
> Arnaud,
>  >> I'have make this package and you could find it
>  >> @www.spyroux.be/~arnaud/debian
> As such a good idea, but ...
>  >> This package (libapache2-mod-auth-ldap) seems to be missing from the
>  >> sarge.
> I thought this as well, but it isn't. The mod_ldap and mod_auth_ldap are 
> part of the package apache2-common. They get installed into 
> /etc/apache2/mods-available, but they are not available until you make a 
> symlink to it in /etc/apache2/mods-enabled.
oh, I didn't see that :-D

[... snip ...]

>  >> This is my first debian package so, this package could contain some
>  >> errors. I build it on a sarge and it's running on www.spyroux.be.
> You linked your package to a specific version of apache2. In the 
> meanwhile a slightly newer version got released, so I was able to instal 
> your package only with dpkg --force-depends. If might have been better 
> (though I am not sure about the rules) to make your package depend on 
> apache2 >= 2.xx rather than apache = 2.xx.

That's because you need to recompile the module each time you have a new
version of apache2-common. But this problem could come from the conflict
between the two versions of the module.

> I wonder though what the rule is what modules are part of apache2-common 
> and which ones are separate Debian packages. I would be tempted to 
> assume that everything which is part of the tarball that comes from the 
> Apache httpd project goes into apache2-common while anything that is 
> made available separately (such as PHP for example) goes into a separate 
>   Debian package, but again, I am not sure.

I don't know... Actually, I didn't update the module since a long time
because the computer where the module is running "just works" without
any problem and because nobody ask me to do it...



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: