1 |
Christian Parpart wrote: |
2 |
> On Wednesday 20 April 2005 2:14 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>>Christian Parpart wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>>>And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to support |
7 |
>>>this in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed apache |
8 |
>>>httpd 2.1 into the tree, so, that I don't have to live with the old |
9 |
>>>shitty behavior again. |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>>>Seriousely, why did we put all our power into those improvements when |
12 |
>>>we're now about to revert mostly everything? |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>>Because they seriously hork people's installations in some cases and cause |
15 |
>>lots of frustration. The improvements seem great, but they need to *work* |
16 |
>>out of the box for most situations which this doesn't appear to be doing. |
17 |
>>Testing is supposed to be for things that work and just need tweaking, not |
18 |
>>something that works for most cases and breaks other people's systems. For |
19 |
>>one, make your eclass backwards compatible so that mod plugins are easier |
20 |
>>to maintain. You're not reverting if you're saving a lot of people some |
21 |
>>pain. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> |
24 |
>>Why do you have to push all these improvements on the current stable |
25 |
>>line of apache (2.0.x) ? |
26 |
> |
27 |
> |
28 |
> I once read stuart's posting far along ago about needing help in apache herd. |
29 |
> So I came in (and others). So we planned what needs to be solved as reported |
30 |
> (tons of items were in bugzilla before), and what needs to be done to improve |
31 |
> maintainship as well as client/hostadmin side configuration and workflow. |
32 |
> So we came up to the current feature set we currently have. And I'm really |
33 |
> happy w/ our fixes and (far more) about the improvements we made. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Apache httpd 2.2-line isn't out there yet, so this wasn't an option at all |
36 |
> (just once AFAIK and not related to the actual problem). *that's* why we've |
37 |
> solved everything possible in 2.0-line. |
38 |
|
39 |
Thats understandable, but there needs to be a defined path to make this kind of |
40 |
change. It needs to have a slow transition to the better layout instead of a |
41 |
quick *BAM* change that everyone has to deal with. Please find a migration plan |
42 |
so this goes smoother. |
43 |
|
44 |
>>Why can't these changes just be used in the |
45 |
>>upcoming alpha/beta releases and totally be implemented by the time they |
46 |
>>move to the next stable release. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> |
49 |
> Wasn't thought about earlier, just as said, however, I feel really sad when we |
50 |
> *move*back* that far, since I feel not happy in upgrading to the next apache |
51 |
> ebuilds on the servers I do administrate, and, in fact, do a downgrade, |
52 |
> because we at least move back with the configuration *and* (most probably) |
53 |
> drop LFS-support as well. That'd be hell for me. |
54 |
> And that's why I proposed to maintain the 2.1-line of apache httpd including |
55 |
> all current features by now - just(!) in case, everyone really *wants* that |
56 |
> we shall revert those improvements. |
57 |
|
58 |
Then make the eclass backwards compatible. You're forcing people to use the new |
59 |
layout when they may not want it. Certainly the eclass can be modified so that a |
60 |
useflag or something could be used to define which layout to use. After a |
61 |
certain amount of time, we can deprecate the old layout. |
62 |
|
63 |
>>Asking people to suddenly change midway |
64 |
>>through is a major pain. If they knew that these kinds of changes were |
65 |
>>going to happen in >2.0.x, then it would be easier for them to manage. |
66 |
> |
67 |
> |
68 |
> we put a blocker into the depends, so, that users have to unmerge there |
69 |
> already installed apache before doing an upgrade. My proposal *now* would |
70 |
> even be, to block actual apache{1,2} installations in pkg_config() that still |
71 |
> have old configuration files in /etc/apache{,2} around. |
72 |
> So, the user is enforced to have a look at it when having done the upgrade. |
73 |
> |
74 |
> src_config() { |
75 |
> if test -e ${APACHE_CONFDIR}; then |
76 |
> einfo "${Place_here_the_info_text_and_URL}" |
77 |
> |
78 |
> die "Old configuratioin files detected. Please remove them \ |
79 |
> before upgrading to new apache." |
80 |
> fi |
81 |
> } |
82 |
|
83 |
That will help some but may cause other problems. |
84 |
|
85 |
> However, I know, that not all ppl would like such a behavior anyway. But doing |
86 |
> everything automatically isn't just the best option. For this, the old |
87 |
> configuration has been just *too* crappy to realize auto adaption of of the |
88 |
> old configuration data into the new layout. |
89 |
|
90 |
Please make this change backwards compatible before putting in ~, thats all I |
91 |
ask. Its crazy to do this kind of a change without making any part of it |
92 |
backwards compatible for at least a certain amount of time. |
93 |
|
94 |
-- |
95 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
96 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operational Manager |
97 |
|
98 |
--- |
99 |
Public GPG key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
100 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
101 |
|
102 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |