httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Issac Goldstand <mar...@beamartyr.net>
Subject Re: commercial support
Date Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:10:31 GMT
On 11/23/2014 4:53 PM, Victor J. Orlikowski wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com
> <mailto:trawick@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>  Docker would not be the right solution for someone who wants to use
>> httpd over the long haul (future updates to httpd+libs while maintain
>> existing config, etc.); beyond the complication of container layers to
>> manage this properly, these folks should have packaging that's managed
>> like other software on their system so that they don't have to learn
>> any new concepts
> 
> Hrm.
> 
> To my mind, at least on RPM-based distributions, that sounds like a set
> of prefixed RPM packages, that install into a non-default system
> location, and that can be built from APR-Util/APR/httpd source trees.
> 
> To be a bit more specific: a buildrpm.sh that takes a templated spec
> file, does the needed configure and make, and drops out a set of
> packages that would install things under /opt/local.
> 
> That about sound about right, Jeff?
> 

Again, you're focusing on the packages, but not on configuration
changes, which I think is what Jeff was trying to point out to begin
with.  I'm pretty sure that there's even a .spec file somewhere that the
project used to maintain, and possibly still does.

The package upgrade is easy, but non-backwards-compatible changes, like
the historic ones between 1.3 and 2.0, and the recent ones between
2.0/2.2 and 2.4 are the hard part.



Mime
View raw message