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

Re: Proposed apache policy.

* Andrew Shugg (andrew@neep.com.au) wrote :
> 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.
Mmmm, sounds pretty reasonable to me, especially as I'm the monkey who "has"

> > 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.

There are packages available for 2.0.28, but they're in the process of being
cleaned over. They certainly will not be in sid until after woody has
totally frozen - I have no desire - or the time - to support users on stable
attempting to run (at best) beta code. When I have packages that I'm happy
with, I'll anounce them to this list.

> 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...)
I think we can get to that bridge when 2.1 is released, and certainly no
sooner. Apache 2 isn't likely to be production code for a fair while, imo.
Performance wise, yes it's close. Stability, no. no no no ;)

> Andrew.
> [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.  =)

Attachment: pgpnz0vfhFToD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: