| 1 |
Hi Chris, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I don't think software updates should be held back because |
| 4 |
> people might still |
| 5 |
> be using old versions. You can fix your apache1 installation |
| 6 |
> now, and all of |
| 7 |
> the software you currently have installed will continue to |
| 8 |
> work. You just |
| 9 |
> won't be able to use new packages that require apache2. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
You're making the assumption that ebuilds for packages that support apache1 |
| 12 |
continue to support apache1 in the future. If, say, the mod_php ebuild |
| 13 |
drops support for apache1, then that forces mod_php users to upgrade to |
| 14 |
apache2. It'll happen eventually, sure. It seems reasonable enough to ask |
| 15 |
whether the gentoo devs have a plan to do this sooner tho ;-) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> On Monday 23 June 2003 11:11, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > PHP is still not recommended for production use with Apache 2 |
| 20 |
> > (http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.apache2.php). |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> <shrug>. AFAIK gentoo isn't recommended for production use either. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Not my issue. The nice thing about Gentoo is that it's a |
| 25 |
"meta-distribution"; it allows us to build servers up out of software that |
| 26 |
we - as the responsible sys admins - are prepared to use in production. |
| 27 |
Personally, I'm happy continuing to use apache1 for now, but am not ready to |
| 28 |
move to apache2. I'm not trying to stop anyone else from using apache2 |
| 29 |
(like I could anyway!). I'm just interested in understanding what the |
| 30 |
future is for apache1 support on Gentoo. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> is |
| 33 |
> "keeping up |
| 34 |
> > with the Jones's" really that important? |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Yes, actually it is. One of the compelling reasons for my switch from |
| 37 |
> debian/redhat to gentoo was that the packages are more |
| 38 |
> up-to-date. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Same here. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
But "packages up to date" isn't the same as "default choice = what other |
| 43 |
distros do". |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> Whats the |
| 46 |
> point in wasting effort backporting bug fixes when there are |
| 47 |
> new releases? |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Who's backporting bugfixes where? I don't see how making apache2 the |
| 50 |
default web server has anything to do with any issues around backporting |
| 51 |
bugfixes. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
> If |
| 54 |
> you need this kind of "fixed point release" software then |
| 55 |
> gentoo, with its |
| 56 |
> constant upgrade cycle, probably isn't the best distro for you. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Thank you for the advice, but I'll decide what's the best distro to run on |
| 59 |
my servers, thank you very much. The reason I like Gentoo is that, I |
| 60 |
feel, it offers a far wider choice than the other distros. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
I'm not asking for "fixed point releases". You've misunderstood me. All |
| 63 |
I'm asking is whether mods will continue to build for apache1 for the |
| 64 |
future. Not just apache1, but important "value added" packages like mod_php |
| 65 |
and mod_authmysql. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
> You can't hold back progress. Having said that, all of your |
| 68 |
> existing software |
| 69 |
> will continue to work as long as you choose not to upgrade |
| 70 |
> it. With gentoo, |
| 71 |
> its your choice. |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
I'm not trying to hold back progress. I'm just trying to understand what |
| 74 |
the apache1 position will be going forward. What's wrong with that? Do you |
| 75 |
feel threatened somehow by the idea that there's someone out there who isn't |
| 76 |
enthusiastic about running apache2 yet? Why the strong (and negative) |
| 77 |
reaction to practical questions? |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
Thanks for the feedback Chris, but please - next time read what I've said |
| 80 |
before hitting that reply button. |
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
Best regards, |
| 83 |
Stu |
| 84 |
-- |
| 85 |
|
| 86 |
|
| 87 |
|
| 88 |
-- |
| 89 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives