Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:15:11
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask by Christian Parpart
1 Christian Parpart wrote:
3 > And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to support this
4 > in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed apache httpd 2.1
5 > into the tree, so, that I don't have to live with the old shitty behavior
6 > again.
7 >
8 > Seriousely, why did we put all our power into those improvements when we're
9 > now about to revert mostly everything?
11 Because they seriously hork people's installations in some cases and cause lots
12 of frustration. The improvements seem great, but they need to *work* out of the
13 box for most situations which this doesn't appear to be doing. Testing is
14 supposed to be for things that work and just need tweaking, not something that
15 works for most cases and breaks other people's systems. For one, make your
16 eclass backwards compatible so that mod plugins are easier to maintain. You're
17 not reverting if you're saving a lot of people some pain. Why do you have to
18 push all these improvements on the current stable line of apache (2.0.x) ? Why
19 can't these changes just be used in the upcoming alpha/beta releases and totally
20 be implemented by the time they move to the next stable release. Asking people
21 to suddenly change midway through is a major pain. If they knew that these kinds
22 of changes were going to happen in >2.0.x, then it would be easier for them to
23 manage.
25 Cheers,
27 --
28 Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o>
29 Gentoo Infrastructure | Operational Manager
31 ---
32 Public GPG key: <>
33 Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742
35 ramereth/


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature