httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <>
Subject Re: Syntax error during HTTP2 reload
Date Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:08:35 GMT
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 <> 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.

What I wanted to point out is that SuSE's web server based on Apache
is supported by SuSE, not by Apache HTTP project.  Just like:

* RedHat's server based on Apache is supported by RedHat
* IBM's server based on Apache is supported by IBM
* HP's server based on Apache is supported by HP
* etc. etc.

Whenever somebody starts asking detailed questions/reporting bugs
against an Apache-based server that has been modified by a third
party, we defer to that third party.  There is no consideration of 
exactly what got modified (e.g., "Foo Systems only adds patches from
later Apache 2.0.x releases, so we Apache folks can offer support to
users of their 2.0.47-based server without any concerns"  vs. "Bar
Systems has some unique function in their 2.0.47-based server so we'll
refuse to support it."  We are a volunteer group with little time to
spare, and we simply can't deal with anything other than the exact
software package which we deliver.

The vendor can choose to discuss with us in terms of pure Apache on
behalf of that customer's requirement, or tell their customer to
reproduce with pure Apache and do it themselves.

View raw message