Re: Apache 2.4 backport
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 04:18:59PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014, Arno Töll wrote:
> > On 24.09.2014 14:41, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > >> FYI I intend to upload a backport of Apache 2.4, because we're going
> > >> to need it for deploying the next FusionForge on Wheezy.
> > >>
> > >> I'll use this method:
> > >> https://wiki.debian.org/BuildingFormalBackports#Self-contained_example_for_Apache_2.4
> > > did you talked with the apache maintainers in advance? If not please do so
> > > and ask them what they think about such a backport.
> >
> > personally I do not mind either way but I'd never take the burden to
> > maintain that backport. About the decision itself, it is something the
> > backport ftpmasters need to decide upon, not us.
> Yeah, but we are only some stupid ftp masters. Therefore the input of the
> maintainers is really appreciated.
>
> > However, as Jan said in the other mail backporting Apache 2.4 to Wheezy
> > is a heavy invasive package that has a few hundred reverse dependencies,
> > that won't work with a backport package as ABIs and APIs are
> > incompatible, and the packaging has changed. To give you an idea: [1]
> > has a list of packages that are instantly RC-buggy without a side
> > backport, and [2] is a list of packages, that may or may not break in
> > one way or another.
> Given that configuration files are incompatible too, we should maybe avoid
> that backport.
And as it was pointed out, backported external modules couldn't be
provided for both Apache 2.2 and Apache 2.4 (e.g. PHP).
So it sounds like this backport is outside the scope of Debian Backports :)
Thanks for the interesting feedback.
Cheers!
Sylvain
Reply to: