1 |
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 2:14 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: |
2 |
> Christian Parpart wrote: |
3 |
> > And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to support |
4 |
> > this in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed apache |
5 |
> > httpd 2.1 into the tree, so, that I don't have to live with the old |
6 |
> > shitty behavior again. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > Seriousely, why did we put all our power into those improvements when |
9 |
> > we're now about to revert mostly everything? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Because they seriously hork people's installations in some cases and cause |
12 |
> lots of frustration. The improvements seem great, but they need to *work* |
13 |
> out of the box for most situations which this doesn't appear to be doing. |
14 |
> Testing is supposed to be for things that work and just need tweaking, not |
15 |
> something that works for most cases and breaks other people's systems. For |
16 |
> one, make your eclass backwards compatible so that mod plugins are easier |
17 |
> to maintain. You're not reverting if you're saving a lot of people some |
18 |
> pain. |
19 |
|
20 |
> Why do you have to push all these improvements on the current stable |
21 |
> line of apache (2.0.x) ? |
22 |
|
23 |
I once read stuart's posting far along ago about needing help in apache herd. |
24 |
So I came in (and others). So we planned what needs to be solved as reported |
25 |
(tons of items were in bugzilla before), and what needs to be done to improve |
26 |
maintainship as well as client/hostadmin side configuration and workflow. |
27 |
So we came up to the current feature set we currently have. And I'm really |
28 |
happy w/ our fixes and (far more) about the improvements we made. |
29 |
|
30 |
Apache httpd 2.2-line isn't out there yet, so this wasn't an option at all |
31 |
(just once AFAIK and not related to the actual problem). *that's* why we've |
32 |
solved everything possible in 2.0-line. |
33 |
|
34 |
> Why can't these changes just be used in the |
35 |
> upcoming alpha/beta releases and totally be implemented by the time they |
36 |
> move to the next stable release. |
37 |
|
38 |
Wasn't thought about earlier, just as said, however, I feel really sad when we |
39 |
*move*back* that far, since I feel not happy in upgrading to the next apache |
40 |
ebuilds on the servers I do administrate, and, in fact, do a downgrade, |
41 |
because we at least move back with the configuration *and* (most probably) |
42 |
drop LFS-support as well. That'd be hell for me. |
43 |
And that's why I proposed to maintain the 2.1-line of apache httpd including |
44 |
all current features by now - just(!) in case, everyone really *wants* that |
45 |
we shall revert those improvements. |
46 |
|
47 |
> Asking people to suddenly change midway |
48 |
> through is a major pain. If they knew that these kinds of changes were |
49 |
> going to happen in >2.0.x, then it would be easier for them to manage. |
50 |
|
51 |
we put a blocker into the depends, so, that users have to unmerge there |
52 |
already installed apache before doing an upgrade. My proposal *now* would |
53 |
even be, to block actual apache{1,2} installations in pkg_config() that still |
54 |
have old configuration files in /etc/apache{,2} around. |
55 |
So, the user is enforced to have a look at it when having done the upgrade. |
56 |
|
57 |
src_config() { |
58 |
if test -e ${APACHE_CONFDIR}; then |
59 |
einfo "${Place_here_the_info_text_and_URL}" |
60 |
|
61 |
die "Old configuratioin files detected. Please remove them \ |
62 |
before upgrading to new apache." |
63 |
fi |
64 |
} |
65 |
|
66 |
However, I know, that not all ppl would like such a behavior anyway. But doing |
67 |
everything automatically isn't just the best option. For this, the old |
68 |
configuration has been just *too* crappy to realize auto adaption of of the |
69 |
old configuration data into the new layout. |
70 |
|
71 |
Best regards, |
72 |
Christian Parpart. |
73 |
|
74 |
-- |
75 |
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt |
76 |
17:09:51 up 28 days, 6:16, 0 users, load average: 0.27, 0.42, 0.42 |