* 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" apache2... > > 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 ;) -Thom > 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