httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thom May <>
Subject Re: stable 2.0 trees
Date Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:52:31 GMT
* G?nter Knauf ( wrote :
> Hi,
> changing the MMN isnt the worse thing, but doing so without any documentation is!
> What I expect is a list that shows for every MMN change a short description why it was
changed or better what has changed in the sources, and if it affects third-party modules and
which, f.e. something like that:
> 20020903 : added new parameter SEND_OPT in function xyz(), NULL could be passed in; affects
filter modules.
> if something like that already exists please point me to it...

> Another problem why Apache2 isnt widely accepted yet (which is closely related to the
MMN bumps):
> with every new release the users have the problem that they dont find the most-wanted
modules which then run with the new release: mod_ssl, mod_perl, mod_jk, PHP.
> I bet that if the ASF would offer complete binary packages which include these modules
then the acceptance of Apache2 would be at once much greater...
I don't see how the _httpd_ server project can legitimately distribute
bundles of software that this project doesn't produce. mod_perl, PHP, and
mod_jk are all seperate projects working on different timescales; it's never
been our job to integrate these modules and I don't see how it ever could
As a professional Apache admin, mostly running sites that use _all_ of the
technologies that you've mentioned, I'm fully aware of where these modules
come from and where I should be going for new versions and for support.
Having httpd distributing tarballs containing other stuff just muddies the
support waters. If we supply the tarball, many people will expect us to
support it, which we can't - we don't necessarily have the specialist
knowledge that the developers would.
> Remeber that these problems never were present with Apache 1.3.x: a PHP or mod_perl copmpiled
for 1.3.20 still loads fine in Apache 1.3.27...; so it was never a problem updating Apache
1.3 to latest version except with mod_ssl...
mod_ssl is integrated with apache2, so that's no longer a concern.

> also I think you developers around here still do not see the differences between 1.3
and 2.0 modules:
> I can still fetch an old module written for Apache 1.2, add the include of ap_compat.h
and most Modules compile and work then without further modification; but no module written
for 2.0.28 compiles without changes with 2.0.43 source tree...
> so my experience:
> compiling an old 1.3 module from 1995 is done in a few minutes;
> copmpiling a module written for 2.0.2x or less from this year: dont know how long it
So? This burden is on the module's author, it's not on us. The MMN has been
stable for 3 releases now.

Thom May ->

<srbaker> Overfiend: what's best?  new or used pussy?
 * stu hears the sound of #debian-devel opening up the fortunes file
   with $EDITOR

View raw message