Re: Question about maintaining the unofficial/parallel apache-lingerd package.
* Fabio Massimo Di Nitto (fabbione@fabbione.net) disait :
> Alexis, with all respect, you have send out this mail after only 2 days you
> have
> tried to contact me in private and i had no time to answer. I find a bit
> annoying
> that you jump to conclusion so fast.
Well, I must admit that mailing the lists so fast was not a good thing.
I hope you could accept my apologies.
I do know that your time is precious, moreover with the needs of
the Ubuntu project.
In a way, that's why I mailed the lists, to ask to a large number of
people for advices.
Frankly, at the time I wrote the mail, I really thought apache-lingerd
would not have a chance to get into Debian.
Because of the fact few people requested for it, because of the fact
getting a new stuff into Debian is quite hard (from what I see) and
because of the fact, Apache 2 is here and Apache 1.3 is going to leave us...
When all that points were clear in my mind, I accepted that
apache-lingerd could leave as a side-package, getting updated with last
releases of apache-1.3 in Debian.
That was the goal of my mail : getting help to do it the better way.
Again, please forgive me for the way I did it, I must have a poor
experience in the Debian communication and did not realize what noise I
could make.
> I understand that there is a possible request for your packages, but as I
> already
> explained to you, adding another flavour of apache is not necessarely
> simple.
I've never thought it was simple. The fact is that the first shot is
here :
apache-lingerd works, and you can use all the apache modules that would
work with the classic apache package. (for instance, I use quite all
default modules with my lingerd package).
I've never heard of some modules (except ssl) patched for the needs of
lingerd. I may miss something though...
> Also, I was going to ask you to discuss the security history of lingerd
> together
> with out security team as next step.
I'm ok to do it, should such a ask go the debian-security list ?
> If we need to add this flavour, we need to know first if it has any security
> complication or bad security history.
Ok, that's true. Again, one of my errors was to ignore that security
point.
> Did you also consider to start creating patches for all modules so that they
> can use lingerd?
IMO (maybe I'm completely wrong) the only work would be concerning
apache ssl + lingerd. That would need another patch. I don't see which
other modules would need any lingerd patches ...
Tell me if you have an idea.
For instance, mod_rewrite, mod_autoindex, mod_negotation... all that
stuff is not concerned by lingerd.
Reading the INSTALL file of lingerd, only mod_ssl would need a
particular patch, so we could imagine an apache-ssl-lingerd flavour.
As there is an apache-perl flavour we also might think to an
apache-perl-lingerd flavour.
Again, feel free to tell me if I'm wrong.
IMO that's the all three flavours needed for lingerd.
I was not considering working on it before lingerd get into Debian...
But, obviously, if there is a need for such a work, I'm here ! :)
> As personal opinion I need to agree with Tollef, that apache1.3 is basically
> a dead package and it might get removed from Debian after Sarge is released.
> That means providing only security support to it.
Well, I've thought to that too. If you think providing lingerd is a bad
thing, tell me, I'm won't pollute the list anymore.
I was just thinking that lingerd was a nice patch that could be useful
for others.
> Are you ready to give such commitment to your package? What I really don't
> want
> is to endup maintaing another flavour on my own and i guess this is the same
> for the other memebers of the team.
I understand.
I would be ready to handle the job but sadly, it seems that it's not
that easy to provide help to Debian...
Thanks for your reply Fabio.
Alexis.
--
Alexis Sukrieh <sukria@sukria.net>
* Another Linux Debian Geek Enthusiast
* http://www.sukria.net
* http://www.debian.org - Just for code.
Reply to: