From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from iai.speak-friend.de (iai.speak-friend.de [62.75.222.128]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j3KFMfoo019028 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:22:41 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.22] (pD9E747C4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.231.71.196]) by iai.speak-friend.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6621238001 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:22:48 +0200 (CEST) From: Christian Parpart Organization: Gentoo Linux Foundation To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:22:23 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <200504160656.43452@zippy.emcb.local> <200504200936.40347.trapni@gentoo.org> <426647BE.8030000@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <426647BE.8030000@gentoo.org> X-Face: $-3HTEy*5}2A{'R'VPim$,8KKX$l|:P^RhP{;yQ)g;]4isyohrOfk\)=?utf-8?q?Q=2Ep=23F3RWB=7D!m=24zn=0A=097=5CPUKBYRKDFUU=3A=5CZ+U=5Fa-/=5BhI?= =?utf-8?q?8DJZ?="WPC2j~}(N."(JB&VNb}kU&`> =?utf-8?q?9=3B=5FN=3BfnM=7BD=7B8=2EI+5=0A=09dg=60p=5EQ?=(:yE{eVgArPf190vEkbGis0vx];" =?utf-8?q?1O!L=7ByKN4J=5B4=27=7E=7Eh+o+=7D=2EgzkmqNs=60=7D=7C0uq8a=0A=09?= =?utf-8?q?=25WQg=3F=3D=25y7X74tMWEkL=5DQQ?=(_Yc"m*aC+HD%!,6/k>L7S%'<}_B2&cI}/W(p+;rJ%2`0A<) =?utf-8?q?F=0A=09P7P=2E=60=3Dy=7C=7DU=7E=3F!?= List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1449377.Kpneem8BgX"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200504201722.25570.trapni@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 02741162-f064-4ac7-9f21-2bc7036a9e59 X-Archives-Hash: 2d4acdcf6f94b3ede001aef451352ab1 --nextPart1449377.Kpneem8BgX Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday 20 April 2005 2:14 pm, Lance Albertson wrote: > Christian Parpart wrote: > > And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to suppo= rt > > this in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed apache > > httpd 2.1 into the tree, so, that I don't have to live with the old > > shitty behavior again. > > > > Seriousely, why did we put all our power into those improvements when > > we're now about to revert mostly everything? > > Because they seriously hork people's installations in some cases and cause > lots of frustration. The improvements seem great, but they need to *work* > out of the box for most situations which this doesn't appear to be doing. > Testing is supposed to be for things that work and just need tweaking, not > something that works for most cases and breaks other people's systems. For > one, make your eclass backwards compatible so that mod plugins are easier > to maintain. You're not reverting if you're saving a lot of people some > pain.=20 > Why do you have to push all these improvements on the current stable=20 > line of apache (2.0.x) ?=20 I once read stuart's posting far along ago about needing help in apache her= d.=20 So I came in (and others). So we planned what needs to be solved as reporte= d=20 (tons of items were in bugzilla before), and what needs to be done to impro= ve=20 maintainship as well as client/hostadmin side configuration and workflow. So we came up to the current feature set we currently have. And I'm really= =20 happy w/ our fixes and (far more) about the improvements we made. Apache httpd 2.2-line isn't out there yet, so this wasn't an option at all= =20 (just once AFAIK and not related to the actual problem). *that's* why we've= =20 solved everything possible in 2.0-line. > Why can't these changes just be used in the=20 > upcoming alpha/beta releases and totally be implemented by the time they > move to the next stable release.=20 Wasn't thought about earlier, just as said, however, I feel really sad when= we=20 *move*back* that far, since I feel not happy in upgrading to the next apach= e=20 ebuilds on the servers I do administrate, and, in fact, do a downgrade,=20 because we at least move back with the configuration *and* (most probably)= =20 drop LFS-support as well. That'd be hell for me.=20 And that's why I proposed to maintain the 2.1-line of apache httpd includin= g=20 all current features by now - just(!) in case, everyone really *wants* that= =20 we shall revert those improvements. > Asking people to suddenly change midway=20 > through is a major pain. If they knew that these kinds of changes were > going to happen in >2.0.x, then it would be easier for them to manage. we put a blocker into the depends, so, that users have to unmerge there=20 already installed apache before doing an upgrade. My proposal *now* would=20 even be, to block actual apache{1,2} installations in pkg_config() that sti= ll=20 have old configuration files in /etc/apache{,2} around. So, the user is enforced to have a look at it when having done the upgrade. src_config() { if test -e ${APACHE_CONFDIR}; then einfo "${Place_here_the_info_text_and_URL}" die "Old configuratioin files detected. Please remove them \ before upgrading to new apache." fi } However, I know, that not all ppl would like such a behavior anyway. But do= ing=20 everything automatically isn't just the best option. For this, the old=20 configuration has been just *too* crappy to realize auto adaption of of the= =20 old configuration data into the new layout. Best regards, Christian Parpart. =2D-=20 Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt 17:09:51 up 28 days, 6:16, 0 users, load average: 0.27, 0.42, 0.42 --nextPart1449377.Kpneem8BgX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCZnOxPpa2GmDVhK0RAiOUAJ9EtFxoquesVeBkc9OA4YV9chQxCQCdE/nV 4vjDg0Dyo39ZawNVCguU6sQ= =X46E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1449377.Kpneem8BgX-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list