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

Re: Proposed apache policy.

Quoth Matthew Wilcox:
> > Although it makes sense to experiment first with apache2, get that
> > right, and then apply the knowledge to 1.3...

Good point.

> That's a fair point.  Don't get me wrong -- if apache isn't ready to
> switch to 2.0, I'm perfectly happy to continue to maintain apache 1.3
> and make it conform to a policy that makes everyone's life easier.

Are we likely to see apache2 packages in sid sometime?  I'm not aware of
any official effort so far to prepare it for Debian, but I would be
pleased to be enlightened.  I imagine a lot of people are going to want
to stick with 1.3[1] until 2.0 is sufficiently stable (presumably when
we start seeing 2.1 releases), so I don't think 2.0 packages should
replace 1.3, but rather be available concurrently.

As with the Perl upgrades, having 'apache1.3' and 'apache2.0' packages
which conflict with one another (or maybe not) while providing the
'apache' pseudo-package may be the way to go for woody++.  Or I might be
the only one who likes that methodology and the rest of the world hates
it?  ;)  (Remembering the autoconf upgrade...)


[1]  Last I heard, Apache 2.0 was performing _almost_ as well as 1.3.22.
     Given that stuff still seems to get added and ripped out on a
     weekly basis I remain pessimistic[2] about a very usable 2.0 release
     in the near future.  =(

[2]  Although no-one has to care about my opinion.  =)

Andrew Shugg <andrew@neep.com.au>                   http://www.neep.com.au/

"Just remember, Mr Fawlty, there's always someone worse off than yourself."
"Is there?  Well I'd like to meet him.  I could do with a good laugh."

Reply to: