Re: [firstname.lastname@example.org: Re: Apache]
> ----- Forwarded message from "Rob (robster) Bradford" <email@example.com> -----
> From: "Rob (robster) Bradford" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: Apache
> To: Remco van de Meent <email@example.com>
> Cc: Scott Henson <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> Debian-Devel <email@example.com>
> On Sun, 2001-09-30 at 19:41, Remco van de Meent wrote:
> > Scott Henson wrote:
> > > I was looking around at the pakages that are avaliable in .deb
> > > format. I saw that even in the unstable distribution you are still
> > > useing the 1.3 version of apache. I was just wondering why that is
> > > and why 2.0 isnt at least avaliable.
> > As far as I know, apache-2.x hasn't been released yet, just a public
> > beta...
> You can find some experimental debs at
Actually, the debs are at http://piro.kabuki.sfarc.net/apache2/
If they're anywhere else, they're probably outdated - I don't think the
location robster gave even exists.
As for why they haven't been uploaded, we had a lot of work done on it
on one laptop, which is stuffed, and was sent to the UK for repairs.
It'll be uploaded when the Laptop O' Joy returns. Anyway, even when
apache2 *does* get uploaded, it'll only be parallel to apache. We've
packaged it in such a way that they will work side-by-side - a setup I
apache2 isn't anywhere near prime-time yet; it's still in alpha stage,
they can't agree on a release to tag as a beta. Apache 1.3.x will stick
around in Debian for quite some time yet.
(PS: Please CC me on all discussion, as I'm not on the list).
Daniel Stone <firstname.lastname@example.org>
<dowdle> What's new?
<Chalky> a three letter word