httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Stoddard <b...@wstoddard.com>
Subject Re: Syntax error during HTTP2 reload
Date Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:54:17 GMT
Dr. Peter Poeml wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:08:35AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> 
>>On 6/8/05, Dr. Peter Poeml <poeml@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 05:57:39AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 10:04:03 +0100, Henri Gomez <henri.gomez@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Nobody to wonder about this bug ?
>>>>
>>>>sure; note that you're using old code (2.0.49/2.0.49) which isn't
>>>>supported here anyway since we don't know what code is in it (SuSE)
>>>
>>>(sorry about the late reply)
>>>
>>>The apache shipped by SUSE is basically built from the pristine sources.
>>>A package named 2.0.49 would contain exactly version 2.0.49, except for
>>>- changes of configuration (I always complied 100% to the old license :)
>>>- security fixes, which are added later (inevitably)
>>>- and, since the codebase was relicensed under the Apache License 2.0
>>>  and it is now allowed to do that, an occasional important fix from
>>>  later released versions of the respective branch
>>
>>I didn't mean to imply that there is anything at all wrong with taking
>>pristine Apache sources and turning it into a product, with the
>>ncessary modifications  (applying security fixes == modifying).  After
>>all, that's a major part of the job that pays my mortgage.  There are
>>a number of vendors who do this.
> 
> [...]
> 
> After I found your reply a bit puzzling at first, I think I understand
> it now ;) I realize that I should add to my previous posting that I did
> not mean to say that you should be expected to support vendor packages.
> If it sounded like that, it wasn't my intention.
> 
> It's just that you said you didn't know what code is in there, which
> implied that there could be arbitrary modifications,

No, this is not the issue at all... Let me try to explain via an extreme example to make the
point.

I can download Apache 2.0.32 from the subversion repository. Then I use 2.0.32, and randomly
apply 73 patches 
that have gone into the source code repository between 2.0.32 and today (2.0.54). I complie
that server and it 
has bugs. All the code in my Apache HTTP Server 2.0.32 + 73 patches is -all- available from
the ASF. Would it 
be reasonable for me to expect this community to help me debug that server? Even if I tell
the community which 
73 patches I applied, is it still reasonable to expect this community to help me debug that
server?  The 
answer is -no-, it is not reasonable.

To drive the point home a bit more deeply... What would you say if I told you that aside from
two standalone 
modules (mod_ibm_ssl and mod_ibm_ldap) that all the other code in the core IBM HTTP Server
(v2) is available 
from the ASF (either via the source code repository or the mailing list archives)?  Does that
mean this 
community should be expected to help 'support' the "ASF portion" of IBM HTTP Server? Absoulutely
not.

Bill (who's is happy you found the solution to your problem)


Mime
View raw message