[gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[Donny Davies]

Hi Devs,

  The time has come (slightly overdue) to make Apache2 the default
version on Gentoo.  Because it is still ~arch masked, you only
get it "by default" if you run the "unstable" flavour around here.

  I'm sure most of you know that distros like RedHat and Mandrake
(plus undoubtedly several others) give you this version by default,
and provide Apache1 packages for those who still want it.

  On Gentoo Apache1 and Apache2 install to separate SLOTS, so you
may have both installed at the same time.  If you configure your
webserver accordingly (we dont do _everything_ for you ;-)) you
may run both at the same time, affording you the opportunity to
migrate your server, and not simply cut-over.

  In a perfect world there'd be no issues at all, and this email
wouldnt be required.  Having said that, I encourage you all to
install Apache2, migrate your configuration and leave Apache1
behind.  Basically this is your opportunity to provide feedback,
an advanced warning, as it were.

  Help us to understand where we are and where we're going with
this.  We're a little behind on this upgrade, so let's get moving.

              Donny.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[Stuart Herbert]

Hi Donny,

>   The time has come (slightly overdue) to make Apache2 the 
> default version on Gentoo.  Because it is still ~arch masked, 
> you only get it "by default" if you run the "unstable" 
> flavour around here.

PHP is still not recommended for production use with Apache 2
(http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.apache2.php).

That said, PHP 4.3.2-r2 runs fine for me under Apache 2 on Gentoo (so far).

>   I'm sure most of you know that distros like RedHat and 
> Mandrake (plus undoubtedly several others) give you this 
> version by default, and provide Apache1 packages for those 
> who still want it.

Good for them ;-)  

RedHat and Mandrake have already "migrated" to rpm.  Does that mean Gentoo
will be too in the near future?
Sarcasm aside, is "keeping up with the Jones's" really that important?

>   Help us to understand where we are and where we're going 
> with this.  We're a little behind on this upgrade, so let's 
> get moving.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who has no plans to migrate away from a
working (and very stable!) Apache 1.3.x solution in the near future.  I have
production servers running on this stuff, and being able to still use Apache
1 on Gentoo is important to my business.  Apache 1 & 2 installing into
separate slots is great news (why doesn't 'USE="-apache2 apache" emerge -p
apache' offer to install Apache 1 tho?  It offers to rebuild Apache 2
only.).  But already I'm coming across (unstable) ebuilds that have been
written to only install with Apache 2 (even tho they're building software
that works with Apache 1 as well).

Is there going to be some sort of "policy decision" on whether new ebuilds
should still support Apache 1 as well (where possible, of course), and for
how long?  And, yes, I'm willing to volunteer to help maintain support for
Apache 1 in other ebuilds if that's what it takes.

Best regards,
Stu
--



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[Chris Bainbridge]

I don't think software updates should be held back because people might still 
be using old versions. You can fix your apache1 installation now, and all of 
the software you currently have installed will continue to work. You just 
won't be able to use new packages that require apache2. As to your points:

On Monday 23 June 2003 11:11, Stuart Herbert wrote:
>
> PHP is still not recommended for production use with Apache 2
> (http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.apache2.php).

<shrug>. AFAIK gentoo isn't recommended for production use either.

> RedHat and Mandrake have already "migrated" to rpm.  Does that mean Gentoo
> will be too in the near future?
> Sarcasm aside, is "keeping up with the Jones's" really that important?

Yes, actually it is. One of the compelling reasons for my switch from 
debian/redhat to gentoo was that the packages are more up-to-date. Whats the 
point in wasting effort backporting bug fixes when there are new releases? If 
you need this kind of "fixed point release" software then gentoo, with its 
constant upgrade cycle, probably isn't the best distro for you.

> I'm sure I'm not the only person who has no plans to migrate away from a
> working (and very stable!) Apache 1.3.x solution in the near future.  I
> have production servers running on this stuff, and being able to still use
> Apache 1 on Gentoo is important to my business.  Apache 1 & 2 installing
> into separate slots is great news (why doesn't 'USE="-apache2 apache"
> emerge -p apache' offer to install Apache 1 tho?  It offers to rebuild
> Apache 2 only.).  But already I'm coming across (unstable) ebuilds that
> have been written to only install with Apache 2 (even tho they're building
> software that works with Apache 1 as well).

You can't hold back progress. Having said that, all of your existing software 
will continue to work as long as you choose not to upgrade it. With gentoo, 
its your choice.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[Stuart Herbert]

Hi Chris,

> I don't think software updates should be held back because 
> people might still 
> be using old versions. You can fix your apache1 installation 
> now, and all of 
> the software you currently have installed will continue to 
> work. You just 
> won't be able to use new packages that require apache2. 

You're making the assumption that ebuilds for packages that support apache1
continue to support apache1 in the future.  If, say, the mod_php ebuild
drops support for apache1, then that forces mod_php users to upgrade to
apache2.  It'll happen eventually, sure.  It seems reasonable enough to ask
whether the gentoo devs have a plan to do this sooner tho ;-)

> On Monday 23 June 2003 11:11, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> >
> > PHP is still not recommended for production use with Apache 2 
> > (http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.apache2.php).
> 
> <shrug>. AFAIK gentoo isn't recommended for production use either.

Not my issue.  The nice thing about Gentoo is that it's a
"meta-distribution"; it allows us to build servers up out of software that
we - as the responsible sys admins - are prepared to use in production.
Personally, I'm happy continuing to use apache1 for now, but am not ready to
move to apache2.  I'm not trying to stop anyone else from using apache2
(like I could anyway!).  I'm just interested in understanding what the
future is for apache1 support on Gentoo.
 
> is 
> "keeping up 
> > with the Jones's" really that important?
> 
> Yes, actually it is. One of the compelling reasons for my switch from 
> debian/redhat to gentoo was that the packages are more 
> up-to-date. 

Same here.

But "packages up to date" isn't the same as "default choice = what other
distros do".

> Whats the 
> point in wasting effort backporting bug fixes when there are 
> new releases? 

Who's backporting bugfixes where?  I don't see how making apache2 the
default web server has anything to do with any issues around backporting
bugfixes.

> If 
> you need this kind of "fixed point release" software then 
> gentoo, with its 
> constant upgrade cycle, probably isn't the best distro for you.

Thank you for the advice, but I'll decide what's the best distro to run on
my servers, thank you very much.    The reason I like Gentoo is that, I
feel, it offers a far wider choice than the other distros.  

I'm not asking for "fixed point releases".  You've misunderstood me.  All
I'm asking is whether mods will continue to build for apache1 for the
future.  Not just apache1, but important "value added" packages like mod_php
and mod_authmysql.
 
> You can't hold back progress. Having said that, all of your 
> existing software 
> will continue to work as long as you choose not to upgrade 
> it. With gentoo, 
> its your choice.

I'm not trying to hold back progress.  I'm just trying to understand what
the apache1 position will be going forward.  What's wrong with that?  Do you
feel threatened somehow by the idea that there's someone out there who isn't
enthusiastic about running apache2 yet?  Why the strong (and negative)
reaction to practical questions?  

Thanks for the feedback Chris, but please - next time read what I've said
before hitting that reply button.

Best regards,
Stu
--



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[Chris Bainbridge]

I expect most major packages will continue to support apache1, but if they 
don't, then don't upgrade to them. If people need apache1 support then they 
will add the ebuilds.

> I'm not trying to hold back progress.  I'm just trying to understand what
> the apache1 position will be going forward.  What's wrong with that?  Do
> you feel threatened somehow by the idea that there's someone out there who
> isn't enthusiastic about running apache2 yet?  Why the strong (and
> negative) reaction to practical questions?

One of the reasons for gentoo's success is the rapid rate of evolution. 
Sometimes you just can't accommodate everybody. Look at gcc 3.2 - when it was 
unmasked it broke lots of packages, if I remember correctly even kde didn't 
compile at one point. But within weeks (days, in some cases) these problems 
were fixed. This wouldn't have happened if people held back for fear of 
things breaking; instead it would've taken months to get these problems 
ironed out. So yes, I feel strongly that the continued evolution of gentoo, 
and the ability to attract new users, depends on getting the latest versions 
of software into the "stable" distro that most people are going to use.

Of course theres nothing wrong with asking practical questions! :-) I'm sorry 
if I mistook your original post and php/redhat comments as suggesting that 
apache2 shouldn't be upgraded to stable status.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[Jon Portnoy]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:34:44PM +0000, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> I don't think software updates should be held back because people might still 
> be using old versions. You can fix your apache1 installation now, and all of 
> the software you currently have installed will continue to work. You just 
> won't be able to use new packages that require apache2. As to your points:
> 
> On Monday 23 June 2003 11:11, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> >
> > PHP is still not recommended for production use with Apache 2
> > (http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.apache2.php).
> 
> <shrug>. AFAIK gentoo isn't recommended for production use either.

Why do you say this? Gentoo is just as viable in a production 
environment as any other distribution.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[Brian Jackson]

On Monday 23 June 2003 06:11 am, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi Donny,
>
> >   The time has come (slightly overdue) to make Apache2 the
> > default version on Gentoo.  Because it is still ~arch masked,
> > you only get it "by default" if you run the "unstable"
> > flavour around here.
>
> PHP is still not recommended for production use with Apache 2
> (http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.apache2.php).
>
> That said, PHP 4.3.2-r2 runs fine for me under Apache 2 on Gentoo (so far).
>
> >   I'm sure most of you know that distros like RedHat and
> > Mandrake (plus undoubtedly several others) give you this
> > version by default, and provide Apache1 packages for those
> > who still want it.
>
> Good for them ;-)
>
> RedHat and Mandrake have already "migrated" to rpm.  Does that mean Gentoo
> will be too in the near future?
> Sarcasm aside, is "keeping up with the Jones's" really that important?

I believe he also said on IRC that the Apache Foundation has deprecated 1.3.x 
in favor of 2.x. So it wasn't just about what Red Hat or Mandrake do. They 
did it for a reason.

>
> >   Help us to understand where we are and where we're going
> > with this.  We're a little behind on this upgrade, so let's
> > get moving.
>
> I'm sure I'm not the only person who has no plans to migrate away from a
> working (and very stable!) Apache 1.3.x solution in the near future.  I
> have production servers running on this stuff, and being able to still use
> Apache 1 on Gentoo is important to my business.  Apache 1 & 2 installing
> into separate slots is great news (why doesn't 'USE="-apache2 apache"
> emerge -p apache' offer to install Apache 1 tho?  It offers to rebuild
> Apache 2 only.).  But already I'm coming across (unstable) ebuilds that
> have been written to only install with Apache 2 (even tho they're building
> software that works with Apache 1 as well).
>
> Is there going to be some sort of "policy decision" on whether new ebuilds
> should still support Apache 1 as well (where possible, of course), and for
> how long?  And, yes, I'm willing to volunteer to help maintain support for
> Apache 1 in other ebuilds if that's what it takes.
>
> Best regards,
> Stu
> --
>
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

-- 
OpenGFS -- http://opengfs.sourceforge.net
Home -- http://www.brianandsara.net


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[Robin H.Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1085 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 12:11:37PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> PHP is still not recommended for production use with Apache 2
> (http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.apache2.php).
> That said, PHP 4.3.2-r2 runs fine for me under Apache 2 on Gentoo (so far).
As the PHP maintainer, I fully support going to Apache2 as default.

The only problems that exist at all with PHP and Apache2 is using a
non-standard MPM (any of the threaded ones) with a non-threadsafe
library. Presently there are only two non-threadsafe libraries
(net-snmp, mcrypt) I am aware of that you can build PHP against, and
both of them are working towards being threadsafe very soon now, if they
aren't already.

This problem with non-threadsafe libraries isn't limited to Apache2
anyway, it can easily happen to any other program (I have seen it with a
few things).

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[Dhruba Bandopadhyay]

Donny Davies wrote:
>  In a perfect world there'd be no issues at all, and this email
> wouldnt be required.  Having said that, I encourage you all to
> install Apache2, migrate your configuration and leave Apache1
> behind.  Basically this is your opportunity to provide feedback,
> an advanced warning, as it were.

Hello

I'd like to say that I wholeheartedly support this move.  Having had a 
fair share of issues with getting PHP to work with Apache2 resulting 
from mistakes that I was making, all is now working perfectly well 
thanks to robbat2.  Unmasking apache2 will not only eradicate the 
somewhat unusual practice of masking for the purpose of being a 
development branch and will considerably cut down administrating both 
releases and their problem free coexistence.  As regarding, conforming 
to specifications of other distros as far as I know Gentoo is the first 
that I've come across that has made it so very easy to get Apache2 and 
PHP working amongst other things.  By taking such leaps they not only 
set new trends in the market but also provide an exemplary lead to the rest.

Many thanks


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[William Kenworthy]

Does anyone know why php wont work with apache-2?

I thought there were "issues" with particular php routines that you may
or may not come across depending on what you are doing, and apache-2
performance in general was slower and was unsatisfactory on high load
servers - i.e., at about 6months ago apache-2 just wasnt ready for prime
time.  Have these problems been overcome, or are they just being
ignored?

BillK

On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 23:16, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:
> Donny Davies wrote:
> >  In a perfect world there'd be no issues at all, and this email
> > wouldnt be required.  Having said that, I encourage you all to
> > install Apache2, migrate your configuration and leave Apache1
> > behind.  Basically this is your opportunity to provide feedback,
> > an advanced warning, as it were.
> 
> Hello
> 
> I'd like to say that I wholeheartedly support this move.  Having had a 
> fair share of issues with getting PHP to work with Apache2 resulting 
> from mistakes that I was making, all is now working perfectly well 
> thanks to robbat2.  Unmasking apache2 will not only eradicate the 
> somewhat unusual practice of masking for the purpose of being a 
> development branch and will considerably cut down administrating both 
> releases and their problem free coexistence.  As regarding, conforming 
> to specifications of other distros as far as I know Gentoo is the first 
> that I've come across that has made it so very easy to get Apache2 and 
> PHP working amongst other things.  By taking such leaps they not only 
> set new trends in the market but also provide an exemplary lead to the rest.
> 
> Many thanks
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-- 
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[Robin H.Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2216 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:46:55AM +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
> Does anyone know why php wont work with apache-2?
See my other posting to this list. It works fine.

> I thought there were "issues" with particular php routines that you
> may or may not come across depending on what you are doing,
That was the thread-safe problem with threaded Apache2 MPMs (such as
worker). Again, see my other post about it. 6 months ago, there were a
lot more thread-safe extensions in PHP, since then the great majority
have been fixed. Just net-snmp and mcrypt still, and those have fixes in
them AFAIK but I don't know if the PHP people have looked if the fixes
are good enough.

> and apache-2 performance in general was slower and was unsatisfactory
> on high load servers - i.e., at about 6months ago apache-2 just wasnt
> ready for prime time.  Have these problems been overcome, or are they
> just being ignored?
I did a little quick testing at work. All values are approximate,
rounded DOWN to the nearest multiple of 10. These tests are a very
simple little script I cooked up, and should not be taken as any
definite performance guide. The actual speed measurements were taken
with 'ab2', on a seperate machine, running over gigabit ethernet.
The test server is a dual Xeon 2.66Ghz, 1GB ECC RAM. Pages are served
from a ramdisk.

Apache1+PHP vs. Apache2(prefork MPM [default])+PHP = dead heat,
different hardware setup might push it in either direction. This is a
non-threaded MPM, so no threadsafe issues here.

All of the remaining MPMs below are threaded:

Apache1+PHP vs. Apache2(worker MPM)+PHP = Apache2 pushes out ~10% more
pages than Apache1. 

Apache1+PHP vs. Apache2(perchild MPM)+PHP = Apache1 wins by ~10%, but
this MPM is intended for more security, not performance. 

Apache1+PHP vs. Apache2(leader MPM)+PHP = Apache2 wins by ~20%, but this
MPM seems unstable over longer periods (and it _is_ marked in the
Apache2 docs as such).

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail     : robbat2@orbis-terrarum.net
Home Page  : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2
ICQ#       : 30269588 or 41961639
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1043 bytes --]

On Tuesday 24 June 2003 04:22, Robin H.Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:46:55AM +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
> > Does anyone know why php wont work with apache-2?
>
> Apache1+PHP vs. Apache2(prefork MPM [default])+PHP = dead heat,
> different hardware setup might push it in either direction. This is a
> non-threaded MPM, so no threadsafe issues here.
>
> All of the remaining MPMs below are threaded:
>
> Apache1+PHP vs. Apache2(worker MPM)+PHP = Apache2 pushes out ~10% more
> pages than Apache1.
>
> Apache1+PHP vs. Apache2(perchild MPM)+PHP = Apache1 wins by ~10%, but
> this MPM is intended for more security, not performance.
>
> Apache1+PHP vs. Apache2(leader MPM)+PHP = Apache2 wins by ~20%, but this
> MPM seems unstable over longer periods (and it _is_ marked in the
> Apache2 docs as such).

I guess that tests where with linuxthreads threading, not ntpl ? (Which is 
still experimental)

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.cs.kun.nl/~pauldv

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

Donny,

So are you going ahead with this change?  I'd like to know if I should
be planning to change it from ~alpha to alpha sometime soon... I see
it's still ~x86 in the tree.

Aron

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[Donny Davies]

On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 05:53:08PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
>So are you going ahead with this change?  I'd like to know if I should
>be planning to change it from ~alpha to alpha sometime soon... I see
>it's still ~x86 in the tree.

  Yes.  Likely this coming week.  I'm reading email but that's about it
until I can adequately recover from last week's surgery.  Don't let me
hold you back in the meantime though....

          Donny

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] HEADS UP: Twitching to un-arch-mask Apache2

[Kumba]

I take it apache 1.3.x will still be left in the tree, right?  I don't 
have plans to migrate to apache2 anytime in the near future (Too lazy to 
mess with the configuration files), so I want to still keep apache1 
around and just inject apache2 as needed.

--Kumba



Donny Davies wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 05:53:08PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> 
>> So are you going ahead with this change?  I'd like to know if I should
>> be planning to change it from ~alpha to alpha sometime soon... I see
>> it's still ~x86 in the tree.
> 
> 
>  Yes.  Likely this coming week.  I'm reading email but that's about it
> until I can adequately recover from last week's surgery.  Don't let me
> hold you back in the meantime though....
> 
>          Donny



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list