Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-users-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 76926 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jul 2002 09:21:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: users@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list users@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 76912 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2002 09:21:59 -0000 Received: from orangexl.cust.2ndreality.nl (HELO mail.orangexl.nl) (213.239.135.95) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Jul 2002 09:21:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 62725 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jul 2002 09:22:58 -0000 Received: from roosendaal.demon.nl (HELO famholthaus) (195.173.235.88) by orangexl.cust.2ndreality.nl with SMTP; 13 Jul 2002 09:22:58 -0000 Message-ID: <004b01c22a4f$9e8b7dc0$58ebadc3@famholthaus> From: "Sander Holthaus - Orange XL" To: , "Ron Wingfield" References: <269109102.5584074.4294641269@mailgate.gordmans.com> <001101c229f4$1a15f1c0$4a688a42@swbell.net> Subject: Re: Upgrading from 2.0.36 Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:28:15 +0200 Organization: Orange XL MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0048_01C22A60.612C10A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C22A60.612C10A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I did the same, when upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36 and 2.0.39 Just be = sure that you compile it the same way (same flags such as = with_experimaental if you previously used them) if you are planning to = use the same config-files. Also, check the bug database and chancelog = files, Apache 2.0.39 still contains some (very serious) bugs. I'm = currently waiting for 2.0.40 ... ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ron Wingfield=20 To: users@httpd.apache.org=20 Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 12:33 AM Subject: Re: Upgrading from 2.0.36 Hello Connie, Since no one else has responded, I'll toss in my two cents. I don't = think there will be any problem installing on top of your existing = v2.0.36. I'm currently planning to upgrade from v2.0.28 to .39. My = plan is to install (i.e., compile the httpd in another directory, and = move the executable to the production directory. This should minimize = the down time, and provide an easy recovery in the event that I = encounter problems; however, I am going to backup my configuration = files, etc., regardless of the process, and I would recommend that you = do the same. Good luck, Ron W. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Connie Jones=20 To: users@httpd.apache.org=20 Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 4:30 PM Subject: Upgrading from 2.0.36 I currently have version 2.0.36 installed but want to upgrade to = 2.0.39. My=20 intent was just to install 2.0.39, as if for first time. My = question is if=20 it is OK to just install this over the earlier version, should I = UNstall the=20 earlier version first, or is it best handled in some other manner.=20 Everything I can find about installing Apache approaches it as if = you have=20 never had it before. I can't find anything for the situation of = upgrading to=20 a newer version than what you already have. Any help would be = appreciated.=20 Thank you. = --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org ------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C22A60.612C10A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I did the same, when upgrading from = 2.0.35 to=20 2.0.36 and 2.0.39 Just be sure that you compile it the same way (same = flags such=20 as with_experimaental if you previously used them) if you are planning = to use=20 the same config-files. Also, check the bug database and chancelog files, = Apache=20 2.0.39 still contains some (very serious) bugs. I'm currently waiting = for 2.0.40=20 ...
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ron=20 Wingfield
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 = 12:33=20 AM
Subject: Re: Upgrading from = 2.0.36

Hello Connie,
 
Since no one else has responded, I'll = toss in my=20 two cents.  I don't think there will be any problem installing on = top of=20 your existing v2.0.36.  I'm currently planning to upgrade from = v2.0.28 to=20 .39.  My plan is to install (i.e., compile the httpd in another=20 directory, and move the executable to the production = directory. =20 This should minimize the down time, and provide an easy recovery in = the event=20 that I encounter problems; however, I am going to backup my = configuration=20 files, etc., regardless of the process, and I would recommend that you = do the=20 same.
 
Good luck,
Ron W.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Connie Jones
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 = 4:30=20 PM
Subject: Upgrading from = 2.0.36

I currently have version 2.0.36 installed but want to = upgrade=20 to 2.0.39.  My
intent was just to install 2.0.39, as if for = first=20 time.  My question is if
it is OK to just install this over = the=20 earlier version, should I UNstall the
earlier version first, or = is it=20 best handled in some other manner.
 Everything I can find = about=20 installing Apache approaches it as if you have
never had it=20 before.  I can't find anything for the situation of upgrading = to=20
 a newer version than what you already have.  Any help = would=20 be appreciated.
 Thank=20 = you.

-------------------------------------------------------------= --------
To=20 unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@http= d.apache.org
For=20 additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org

------=_NextPart_000_0048_01C22A60.612C10A0--