httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Gomez <>
Subject Re: Syntax error during HTTP2 reload
Date Wed, 08 Jun 2005 19:39:32 GMT
Suse like many others major Linux distributions do not follow the
release rate since they should be sure that they won't break anything
in their users/customers settings after jumping from 2.0.49 to say

To resume the question from Peter, who is the Suse Apache rpm
mainteners, was more to see if it was a known bug may be solved in
later release.


2005/6/8, Bill Stoddard <>:
> Dr. Peter Poeml wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:08:35AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >
> >>On 6/8/05, Dr. Peter Poeml <> 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 <>
> >>>>
> >>>>>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)

View raw message