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

Re: apache2: clearing the air [please read]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 03:33:33PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > You're saying there's not some way to take a simple/standard apache.conf
> > > and transform it into a config file that will make apache2 do the same
> > > thing?
> > 
> > The config file here contains only minor changes from the shipped default
> > and still the upgrade has been failing more often than not. But you are
> > expecting the transition from a1 to a2 to be automagic never the less?
> No, if it can't be automated, it can't be automated, and admins will
> have to do it by hand. The fact remains that a *lot* of admins are
> eventually going to want to upgrade to apache2, and the upgrade path
> should be as painless as possible.

TBH, I wasn't thinking about the upgrade path. Put it this way - if
you're going to be installing apache2 now, that's the least of your
worries. It's still alpha software on the verge of beta. It isn't
anywhere near ready to replace apache yet (there are still over 10
release showstoppers listed IIRC). The sort of people who would be
installing apache2 are the sort of people who would run ... well, tbh I
can't think of a decent comparison, but you get the idea.

> If it already requires manual config file conversion, then stacking
> vhosting changes and default web document root changes on top of that is
> beginning to ask a heck of a lot from the admin. If we make it too hard
> we will just get a lot of admins swearing, compiling the new version of
> apache from sources, and losing faith in debian.

Why would they compile the new version of apache from sources? They
could do a small amount of tweaking and change httpd.conf if they
wanted, no-one would stop them. They just wouldn't be able to use the
scripts, etc.

> And I'm concerned that the focus of these apache2 packages that
> have been produced is not such upgrades, and that the people who have
> worked on them have seemed to entirely disregrade that problem in the
> mail at the head of this thread.

I only speak for 50% of the apache2 maintainer, but an upgrade path
wasn't my focus. If you're depreceating apache in favour of apache2, you
deserve pain. (If you are, please give me the address of your crack
dealer). Before you mention it, the reason I run apache2 on my server at
home is because it has a habit of going down anyway, apache runs on port
81, and I needed to test it (it was my only machine for a while).

I'm sure someone could write a PERL script. My goals from even before I
hit dh_make were to get a good, working package. About 2 weeks ago,
getting good virtual hosting support in became another of my goals. I
feel that I've achieved both of these (bar, of course, policy

I honestly feel that at this point, we should be concerned with getting
coherent, working packages. Then maybe we can work on the upgrade path.
Right now, policy compliance seems somewhat more important.


Daniel Stone						    <daniel@sfarc.net>
* bod notes that "US English" is a contradiction in terms

Reply to: