[gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Luca Longinotti]

Hi all!
As announced in the 30 April 2007 edition of GWN [1], net-www/apache-1*
as well as all packages depending/using it were masked, pending removal
on 12 June 2007.
I fixed all packages, dependencies, etc. I could find to work correctly
after the masking (generally removing Apache 1.X support from them).
If you find any issue still, please open a bug about it, assign it to
apache-bugs@gentoo.org and make it block bug #178189 [2].
If you use or plan on using the apache-module or depend.apache eclasses,
be aware that the need_apache function doesn't anymore export the
apache2 USE flag to IUSE, since now it directly depends on Apache 2.X,
so be sure to declare it in your ebuilds IUSE (I fixed the few cases
where this wasn't already done).
Thanks and happy upgrading to Apache 2.X!

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20070430-newsletter.xml
[2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178189
-- 
Best regards,
Luca Longinotti aka CHTEKK

LongiTEKK Networks Admin: chtekk@longitekk.com
Gentoo Dev: chtekk@gentoo.org
SysCP Dev: chtekk@syscp.org
TILUG Supporter: chtekk@tilug.ch
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[A. Khattri]

On Sat, 12 May 2007, Luca Longinotti wrote:

> As announced in the 30 April 2007 edition of GWN [1], net-www/apache-1*
> as well as all packages depending/using it were masked, pending removal
> on 12 June 2007.
> I fixed all packages, dependencies, etc. I could find to work correctly
> after the masking (generally removing Apache 1.X support from them).
> If you find any issue still, please open a bug about it, assign it to
> apache-bugs@gentoo.org and make it block bug #178189 [2].
> If you use or plan on using the apache-module or depend.apache eclasses,
> be aware that the need_apache function doesn't anymore export the
> apache2 USE flag to IUSE, since now it directly depends on Apache 2.X,
> so be sure to declare it in your ebuilds IUSE (I fixed the few cases
> where this wasn't already done).

Annoying - can't even keep what I have without upgrading. I have servers
in production that have broken PHP modules - can't downgrade to
4.4.6 either...


-- 
A
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Andrew Gaffney]

A. Khattri wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2007, Luca Longinotti wrote:
> 
>> As announced in the 30 April 2007 edition of GWN [1], net-www/apache-1*
>> as well as all packages depending/using it were masked, pending removal
>> on 12 June 2007.
>> I fixed all packages, dependencies, etc. I could find to work correctly
>> after the masking (generally removing Apache 1.X support from them).
>> If you find any issue still, please open a bug about it, assign it to
>> apache-bugs@gentoo.org and make it block bug #178189 [2].
>> If you use or plan on using the apache-module or depend.apache eclasses,
>> be aware that the need_apache function doesn't anymore export the
>> apache2 USE flag to IUSE, since now it directly depends on Apache 2.X,
>> so be sure to declare it in your ebuilds IUSE (I fixed the few cases
>> where this wasn't already done).
> 
> Annoying - can't even keep what I have without upgrading. I have servers
> in production that have broken PHP modules - can't downgrade to
> 4.4.6 either...

You're completely welcome to keep apache-1.x in an overlay (as well as all the 
ebuilds that use it) and continue running it. Don't complain about the decisions 
the *volunteer* devs make when you're not stepping up to help in any way.

-- 
Andrew Gaffney                            http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer                                   Installer Project
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[David Tauriainen]

A. Khattri wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2007, Luca Longinotti wrote:
> 
>> As announced in the 30 April 2007 edition of GWN [1], net-www/apache-1*
>> as well as all packages depending/using it were masked, pending removal
>> on 12 June 2007.
>> I fixed all packages, dependencies, etc. I could find to work correctly
>> after the masking (generally removing Apache 1.X support from them).
>> If you find any issue still, please open a bug about it, assign it to
>> apache-bugs@gentoo.org and make it block bug #178189 [2].
>> If you use or plan on using the apache-module or depend.apache eclasses,
>> be aware that the need_apache function doesn't anymore export the
>> apache2 USE flag to IUSE, since now it directly depends on Apache 2.X,
>> so be sure to declare it in your ebuilds IUSE (I fixed the few cases
>> where this wasn't already done).
> 
> Annoying - can't even keep what I have without upgrading. I have servers
> in production that have broken PHP modules - can't downgrade to
> 4.4.6 either...
> 
> 

I noticed this behavior as well.  It's because the apache USE flag was
removed from the php package.  Once the 4.4.7 build succeeded (but
failed since it didn't produce an apache1 mod), a downgrade to 4.4.6
wasn't possible (since neither had the USE flag available).  Luckily,
there's always source to work from, or if you've got another identical
machine that hasn't emerege --sync 'd yet... (nice to keep one around
that syncs at a slower pace than others for this reason).

One question from a gentoo newbie:  Unmasking apache and its associated
packages was simple enough, but is there a way to allow a USE flag from
a hard-masked package like apache to be used by packages like php?
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Luca Longinotti]

David Tauriainen wrote:
> I noticed this behavior as well.  It's because the apache USE flag was
> removed from the php package.  Once the 4.4.7 build succeeded (but
> failed since it didn't produce an apache1 mod), a downgrade to 4.4.6
> wasn't possible (since neither had the USE flag available).  Luckily,
> there's always source to work from, or if you've got another identical
> machine that hasn't emerege --sync 'd yet... (nice to keep one around
> that syncs at a slower pace than others for this reason).

Yup, the apache USE flag was removed from PHP, if you really need PHP
ebuilds that still support Apache1 correctly, check out Gentoos CVS
(you'll also need eclasses that hadn't the Apache1 support for PHP
removed, should be fairly easy as I've used pretty clear commit messages
for those changes).

> One question from a gentoo newbie:  Unmasking apache and its associated
> packages was simple enough, but is there a way to allow a USE flag from
> a hard-masked package like apache to be used by packages like php?
Well in this case, NO, because the USE flag was totally removed from the
ebuild. If you need it, get the old ebuilds from CVS (see above).
Still, unmasking will do you little good as on the 12th June all Apache1
stuff will be definitely removed from the tree, so you either start
copying stuff to your own overlay and maintain it yourself, or you can
migrate to Apache2, which is waaay better! ;)
-- 
Best regards,
Luca Longinotti aka CHTEKK

LongiTEKK Networks Admin: chtekk@longitekk.com
Gentoo Dev: chtekk@gentoo.org
SysCP Dev: chtekk@syscp.org
TILUG Supporter: chtekk@tilug.ch
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[A. Khattri]

On Mon, 14 May 2007, Andrew Gaffney wrote:

> You're completely welcome to keep apache-1.x in an overlay (as well as all the
> ebuilds that use it) and continue running it. Don't complain about the decisions
> the *volunteer* devs make when you're not stepping up to help in any way.

Assuming we all know how to write and maintain ebuilds and know how to get
back to a version of PHP that builds for Apache 1.x...

I have no problem with change as long as there is an easy way to keep what
we have. After all, Gentoo is about having a choice and removing the
apache flag from PHP without providing some other mechanism to keep it is
simply removing choice.

Anyway, has anyone setup overlays for Apache 1.x and PHP 4.x that build
mod_php for Apache 1.x?


-- 
A
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-server] Re: net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Arnaud Launay]

Hello,

Le Sat, May 12, 2007 at 03:43:15PM +0200, Luca Longinotti a écrit:
> Thanks and happy upgrading to Apache 2.X!

I upgraded one of my server for testing, and there's a slight
problem, not directly related but yet annoying.

I test every night, after sync, for glsa for each system. Since I
upgraded to apache 2.0 and php 4.4.7, the glsa for php-5 want to
be applied, even if they do not apply.

GLSAS=$(glsa-check -l -n 2>/dev/null | cut -d' ' -f1 | xargs glsa-check -t 2>/dev/null)

nw1 ~ # echo $GLSAS 
200605-08 200608-28 200610-14 200703-21

They all want to upgrade to php5...

Problems with the GLSA ? I remember some were badly formatted
some months (years ?) ago, thus provoking this, but as it is only
showing now after the upgrade, I wonder...

Ideas ?

Thanks,
	Arnaud.
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 533 bytes --]

A. Khattri kirjoitti:
>
> Assuming we all know how to write and maintain ebuilds and know how to get
> back to a version of PHP that builds for Apache 1.x...

You can always pay someone to do it.

> 
> I have no problem with change as long as there is an easy way to keep what
> we have. After all, Gentoo is about having a choice and removing the
> apache flag from PHP without providing some other mechanism to keep it is
> simply removing choice.
> 

Fine idea of we had unlimited resources.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Andrew Gaffney]

A. Khattri wrote:
> I have no problem with change as long as there is an easy way to keep what
> we have. After all, Gentoo is about having a choice and removing the
> apache flag from PHP without providing some other mechanism to keep it is
> simply removing choice.

I see this type of argument used all the time. Some people just don't seem to 
get the fact that all Gentoo devs are volunteers, and we will do whatever makes 
it easier on *us*. If you don't like it, don't bitch about choice. You have the 
*choice* to learn how to maintain the stuff yourself and not complain. You don't 
pay for Gentoo, so you don't have the right to tell any Gentoo dev what to do 
with their volunteer time.</rant>

-- 
Andrew Gaffney                                 http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer             Catalyst/Installer + x86 release coordinator
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-server] Re: net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Arnaud Launay]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 294 bytes --]

Le Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:34:36PM +0200, Marius Mauch a écrit:
> That's because those GLSAs haven't been updated to include
> 4.4.7 as unaffected (the big problem with the rge operator).

Ok, got it. Do I need to create a bug for this, or is it being
taken care of already ?

	Arnaud.

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

Re: [gentoo-server] Re: net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Raphael Marichez]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 640 bytes --]

On Tue, 15 May 2007, Arnaud Launay wrote:

> Le Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:34:36PM +0200, Marius Mauch a écrit:
> > That's because those GLSAs haven't been updated to include
> > 4.4.7 as unaffected (the big problem with the rge operator).
> 
> Ok, got it. Do I need to create a bug for this, or is it being
> taken care of already ?


it's being fixed by Sune just atm :)  and i'm just being comitting
another fix. You can wait a few hours an sync again, thanks for the
report.

If such a case happens again, feel free to file a bug, product "Gentoo
Security", category "GLSA errors".




-- 
Raphael Marichez aka Falco

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 481 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-server] Re: net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1239 bytes --]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:44:38 +0200
Arnaud Launay <asl@launay.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Le Sat, May 12, 2007 at 03:43:15PM +0200, Luca Longinotti a écrit:
> > Thanks and happy upgrading to Apache 2.X!
> 
> I upgraded one of my server for testing, and there's a slight
> problem, not directly related but yet annoying.
> 
> I test every night, after sync, for glsa for each system. Since I
> upgraded to apache 2.0 and php 4.4.7, the glsa for php-5 want to
> be applied, even if they do not apply.
> 
> GLSAS=$(glsa-check -l -n 2>/dev/null | cut -d' ' -f1 | xargs
> glsa-check -t 2>/dev/null)
> 
> nw1 ~ # echo $GLSAS 
> 200605-08 200608-28 200610-14 200703-21
> 
> They all want to upgrade to php5...
> 
> Problems with the GLSA ? I remember some were badly formatted
> some months (years ?) ago, thus provoking this, but as it is only
> showing now after the upgrade, I wonder...

That's because those GLSAs haven't been updated to include 4.4.7 as
unaffected (the big problem with the rge operator).

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

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

Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Mark Rudholm]

Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> A. Khattri wrote:
>> I have no problem with change as long as there is an easy way to keep
>> what
>> we have. After all, Gentoo is about having a choice and removing the
>> apache flag from PHP without providing some other mechanism to keep it is
>> simply removing choice.
> 
> I see this type of argument used all the time. Some people just don't
> seem to get the fact that all Gentoo devs are volunteers, and we will do
> whatever makes it easier on *us*. If you don't like it, don't bitch
> about choice. You have the *choice* to learn how to maintain the stuff
> yourself and not complain. You don't pay for Gentoo, so you don't have
> the right to tell any Gentoo dev what to do with their volunteer
> time.</rant>

If people are using this argument all the time, it might be
worth considering why they are.

Gentoo tends to remove packages or change them in a way that
is not rearward-compatible more readily than other distributions.
I understand that the labor is all volunteer, however, other,
more stable/mature distributions are also all-volunteer, but yes,
that's the way it is.  People spend their volunteer time as they
see fit, I understand this completely.

The result, however, is that Gentoo becomes an inappropriate
choice for a production server deployment.  I haven't suggested
Gentoo for production servers to anyone (especially my employers)
since somewhere around 2003 for this reason.

At work, my team of a few dozen people support tens of thousands
of Linux servers.  We wrote our own tools for installation,
distribution, and maintenance of OSes and package sets.  There was
a time when I considered that we could use Gentoo.  Our own custom
Portage repositories could be maintained, and the portage tools
would cover a lot of the things we need to do very nicely.  It'd
be great to build on the work of other Gentoo contributors, and
we'd no doubt join the larger community of contributors.  But I
simply can't recommend this.  The Gentoo developers and packagers
in general seem more interested in the latest shiny thing rather
than stability, reliability, and predictability.  Fine for a desktop,
but antithetical to the needs of people running mission-critical
server farms.  As you point out, it's entirely the prerogative of
the developers and packagers to set their own priorities, and I
agree of course, but do be aware of the results of the choices of
Gentoo packagers and developers and how they collectively create
the personality of the distro and how that personality effects the
choices of other potential contributors and users of Gentoo Linux.

-Mark (who uses Gentoo on his personal systems these days)
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Ben Munat]

Just out of curiosity (I've *always* used apache 2 on gentoo), why is 
apache 1.x being removed from portage?

b

Mark Rudholm wrote:
> Andrew Gaffney wrote:
>> A. Khattri wrote:
>>> I have no problem with change as long as there is an easy way to keep
>>> what
>>> we have. After all, Gentoo is about having a choice and removing the
>>> apache flag from PHP without providing some other mechanism to keep it is
>>> simply removing choice.
>> I see this type of argument used all the time. Some people just don't
>> seem to get the fact that all Gentoo devs are volunteers, and we will do
>> whatever makes it easier on *us*. If you don't like it, don't bitch
>> about choice. You have the *choice* to learn how to maintain the stuff
>> yourself and not complain. You don't pay for Gentoo, so you don't have
>> the right to tell any Gentoo dev what to do with their volunteer
>> time.</rant>
> 
> If people are using this argument all the time, it might be
> worth considering why they are.
> 
> Gentoo tends to remove packages or change them in a way that
> is not rearward-compatible more readily than other distributions.
> I understand that the labor is all volunteer, however, other,
> more stable/mature distributions are also all-volunteer, but yes,
> that's the way it is.  People spend their volunteer time as they
> see fit, I understand this completely.
> 
> The result, however, is that Gentoo becomes an inappropriate
> choice for a production server deployment.  I haven't suggested
> Gentoo for production servers to anyone (especially my employers)
> since somewhere around 2003 for this reason.
> 
> At work, my team of a few dozen people support tens of thousands
> of Linux servers.  We wrote our own tools for installation,
> distribution, and maintenance of OSes and package sets.  There was
> a time when I considered that we could use Gentoo.  Our own custom
> Portage repositories could be maintained, and the portage tools
> would cover a lot of the things we need to do very nicely.  It'd
> be great to build on the work of other Gentoo contributors, and
> we'd no doubt join the larger community of contributors.  But I
> simply can't recommend this.  The Gentoo developers and packagers
> in general seem more interested in the latest shiny thing rather
> than stability, reliability, and predictability.  Fine for a desktop,
> but antithetical to the needs of people running mission-critical
> server farms.  As you point out, it's entirely the prerogative of
> the developers and packagers to set their own priorities, and I
> agree of course, but do be aware of the results of the choices of
> Gentoo packagers and developers and how they collectively create
> the personality of the distro and how that personality effects the
> choices of other potential contributors and users of Gentoo Linux.
> 
> -Mark (who uses Gentoo on his personal systems these days)
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Robert Worreby]

I can only agree with Mark, I use Gentoo extensively at home, and love it.

But at work (Telco environment) I wouldn't recommend it, there we go with Red 
Hat Linux (surprise surprise ;-) ) when it comes to Linux, otherwise we're 
using HP-Unix and Sun Solaris extensively.

Personally I'd prefer for a server environment Debian which for a company got 
a stable and long release cyclus (even though it's nowhere as flexible as 
Gentoo....)

It's basically all boils down to production stability and knowing your 
environment from a to z.

--Robert

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 19:13, Mark Rudholm wrote:
> Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> > A. Khattri wrote:
> >> I have no problem with change as long as there is an easy way to keep
> >> what
> >> we have. After all, Gentoo is about having a choice and removing the
> >> apache flag from PHP without providing some other mechanism to keep it
> >> is simply removing choice.
> >
> > I see this type of argument used all the time. Some people just don't
> > seem to get the fact that all Gentoo devs are volunteers, and we will do
> > whatever makes it easier on *us*. If you don't like it, don't bitch
> > about choice. You have the *choice* to learn how to maintain the stuff
> > yourself and not complain. You don't pay for Gentoo, so you don't have
> > the right to tell any Gentoo dev what to do with their volunteer
> > time.</rant>
>
> If people are using this argument all the time, it might be
> worth considering why they are.
>
> Gentoo tends to remove packages or change them in a way that
> is not rearward-compatible more readily than other distributions.
> I understand that the labor is all volunteer, however, other,
> more stable/mature distributions are also all-volunteer, but yes,
> that's the way it is.  People spend their volunteer time as they
> see fit, I understand this completely.
>
> The result, however, is that Gentoo becomes an inappropriate
> choice for a production server deployment.  I haven't suggested
> Gentoo for production servers to anyone (especially my employers)
> since somewhere around 2003 for this reason.
>
> At work, my team of a few dozen people support tens of thousands
> of Linux servers.  We wrote our own tools for installation,
> distribution, and maintenance of OSes and package sets.  There was
> a time when I considered that we could use Gentoo.  Our own custom
> Portage repositories could be maintained, and the portage tools
> would cover a lot of the things we need to do very nicely.  It'd
> be great to build on the work of other Gentoo contributors, and
> we'd no doubt join the larger community of contributors.  But I
> simply can't recommend this.  The Gentoo developers and packagers
> in general seem more interested in the latest shiny thing rather
> than stability, reliability, and predictability.  Fine for a desktop,
> but antithetical to the needs of people running mission-critical
> server farms.  As you point out, it's entirely the prerogative of
> the developers and packagers to set their own priorities, and I
> agree of course, but do be aware of the results of the choices of
> Gentoo packagers and developers and how they collectively create
> the personality of the distro and how that personality effects the
> choices of other potential contributors and users of Gentoo Linux.
>
> -Mark (who uses Gentoo on his personal systems these days)
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[kashani]

Mark Rudholm wrote:
> The result, however, is that Gentoo becomes an inappropriate
> choice for a production server deployment.  I haven't suggested
> Gentoo for production servers to anyone (especially my employers)
> since somewhere around 2003 for this reason.

	Strange as that's the year I started pushing Gentoo into production. 
One of the reasons was it allowed us to keep Apache 1.3 when Redhat, 
Suse, etc were forcing 2.0 upon us. We weren't ready at the time, had 
some custom Apache 1.3 modules we needed to update, and frankly 2.0 
hadn't been around long enough for anyone to trust it.
	However we did transition to Apache 2.0 in late 2004 because Apache 1.3 
was 10-15% slower, module support was starting to go downhill, and 
eventually you do need to update your systems. Being able to run the 
content servers multi-threaded was a nice gain as well. Overall the 
transition allowed us to grow with 20-25% less hardware than Apache 1.3 
would have required. In a system of one hundred servers that's an 
elimination of twenty servers, one switch, a ton or so of air 
conditioning, half a rack, 40-60A of electric, one KVM, and so on.

	You can't run 1.3 forever and IMHO four years has been more than enough 
time to decide to update a web server even if you have thousands of them.

kashani

	
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-server] Re: net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Arnaud Launay]

Le Tue, May 15, 2007 at 08:48:51PM +0200, Robert Worreby a écrit:
> It's basically all boils down to production stability and
> knowing your environment from a to z.

And not being forced to update when there's no real technical
reason to... Upgrading apache on all my gentoo servers is gonna
be a pain, and one not needed. I just hope it won't be the same
for mysql -- at least, apache is stable, and this is a good
excuse to do the upgrade.

	Arnaud.
-- 
Perso: http://launay.org/blog/
Hébergement: http://www.nocworld.com/
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[fire-eyes]

kashani wrote:

> 
>     You can't run 1.3 forever and IMHO four years has been more than
> enough time to decide to update a web server even if you have thousands
> of them.
> 
> kashani


kashani++;
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Andrew Gaffney]

Ben Munat wrote:
> Just out of curiosity (I've *always* used apache 2 on gentoo), why is 
> apache 1.x being removed from portage?

Probably because of the extra time/work that it takes to maintain 
compatability/support for both 1.x and 2.x in every ebuild that uses apache.

-- 
Andrew Gaffney                                 http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer             Catalyst/Installer + x86 release coordinator
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Ben Munat]

Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Ben Munat wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity (I've *always* used apache 2 on gentoo), why is 
>> apache 1.x being removed from portage?
> 
> Probably because of the extra time/work that it takes to maintain 
> compatability/support for both 1.x and 2.x in every ebuild that uses 
> apache.
> 
Hmm, yeah... and every little security patch or upstream hiccup... I 
guess that was a dumb question... plenty of extra work there. Well, I 
for one, would love to see the whole 1.* vs. 2.* thing behind us. Now 
can anyone kick some sense into Apple? :-)

b
-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-server] net-www/apache-1* masked.

[Benny Pedersen]

On Tue, May 15, 2007 20:48, Robert Worreby wrote:
> I can only agree with Mark, I use Gentoo extensively at home, and love it.

keep up the good work Robert :)

> But at work (Telco environment) I wouldn't recommend it, there we go with Red
> Hat Linux (surprise surprise ;-))

i have still redhat 8 aswell here, need time to change it to gentoo, redhat 8
keeps working for  me, damm redhat :-)

> when it comes to Linux, otherwise we're
> using HP-Unix and Sun Solaris extensively.

my sun server is a coldcabinet for beers :-)

> Personally I'd prefer for a server environment Debian which for a company got
> a stable and long release cyclus (even though it's nowhere as flexible as
> Gentoo....)

do we talk debian enterprise or jost debian ?

what gentoo needs is enterprise and more that use developes for gentoo
enterprise, not complain on what is missing in gentoo

> It's basically all boils down to production stability and knowing your
> environment from a to z.

i know perfect with gentoo, but its hard with other os

thanks to devs on gentoo, i love the work that ARE being done, and hope i am
not needed to install another iso to break things

-- 
This message was sent using 100% recycled spam mails.

-- 
gentoo-server@gentoo.org mailing list