Re: Solutions for the Apache upgrade hell
On 2014-07-23 01:19:01 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Arno Töll <firstname.lastname@example.org> [140722 22:10]:
> > On 21.07.2014 20:58, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > Yes, and a consequence of this loss is that dpkg fails.
> > dpkg does not at all fail. If anything dpkg errors out because Apache's
> > maintainer script failed, because "invoke.rc-d apache2 restart" failed,
> > because ... you guess it, somebody removed the .load symlinks we expect
> > to be there.
> As a mere bystander I still don't really understand the underlying
> issue. You're basically saying that /some/ conffiles are kept, and
> others are purged and reinstalled?
The issue is that they are purged, but *not* reinstalled.
> Possible radical solution: abandon old apache binary package names
> [of those that ship conffiles], introduce a new set of names,
> Conflict/Break (but not Replace?) the old ones and have all modules
> depend on the new packages.
> 3rdparty module packages will then prevent upgrades or get
> deinstalled, and users get a fresh config that works, but may not do
> anything useful.
The issue is not with 3rd-party module packages (specifically),
but with the standard modules. And without these standard modules,
Apache cannot be started.
Vincent Lefèvre <email@example.com> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)