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

Re: Bug#364652: ITP: squid3 -- Internet Object Cache (WWW proxy cache) version 3

Luigi Gangitano wrote on 25/04/2006 14:19:
> Il giorno 25/apr/06, alle ore 13:57, Sven Mueller ha scritto:
>>>Luigi Gangitano wrote on 25/04/2006 01:32:
>>>>So I'm packaging Squid-3.0 from new sources (using CDBS for the first
>>>>time, great!). The resulting packages will be named 'squid3, squid3-
>>>>common, squid3-client, squid3-cgi' and will conflict with the
>>>>existing squid packages.
>>>Why do you conflict? Would squid3 require such big changes to make it
>>>installable side-by-side with the squid 2.5 packages? Wouldn't it make
>>>sense to allow as many people as possible to test it with their
>>>production squid (2.5) still available?
> Whould you really use your production machine to test some  
> experimental software?

Some people don't have much of a choice there (budget constraints,
floor/rack space etc.). And there isn't too much contradicting such
practice if the "experimental" software doesn't conflict (in some way,
not necessarily the "Conflicts:" Debian meaning) with the production
software. It actually is quite common to do that, even though it is not
what the admins in question would like best.

>>>Note that I do realize that you would need to revert any such changes
>>>once squid3 becomes stable (and a possible upgrade from 2.5). I'm just
>>>wondering wether the changes were so big that this is infeasible.
> Changes are not that big. But since squid 2.5 would still be  
> available and reverting to it is a simple 'uninstall squid3 and  
> reinstall squid' operation that doesn't impact configuration files  
> and the caches, I don't see why it's needed to keep them separated.

Well, I gave one reason: People might want to test it alongside with a
production squid still running. I see a small number of problems with
that though. Especially if people choose to run squid3 (the version I
suggested which is installable alongside squid_2.5) as their production
proxy, they would need to change configuration to switch to the squid
package once squid3 is stable and gets renamed. However, I would still
consider it favorable to make squid3 installable with squid(2.5) still
running. The possible benefits by a larger number of installations are
bigger (IMHO) then the drawbacks.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: