On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 19:00 -0800, Peter Serwe wrote: > We've been going through some growing pains fumbling through porting > some custom > C modules that used to live under apache 1.3 into the 2.0 spec, even > though none of us > really considers ourselves a 'C developer'. We've basically got them > all working now > under the 2.0 API, and the question was posed about whether or not we > should consider > attempting to upgrade everything to run under httpd-2.2. > > I noticed the httpd2 port is only 2.0.53 under CentOS, and I was > wondering why that is? That is because that is what CentOS-4 was released with ... and we don't want everyone who has custom modules to go through what you did because we pushed an update :P The way an enterprise distro works is pretty much all the major apps get bug fixes and security updates only after release ... but they do not move up to newer MAJOR versions. This is true throughout the lifetime of the distro. It is _especially_ true for server apps. Can you imagine the pissed-offedness IF you do an update for httpd and none of your custom modules worked ... and then imagine you had hired someone and paid $500,000.00 to have them designed, and you did not have anyone in house to fix them :P Instead, an enterprise distro will backport bug fixes and security updates. See this link: http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_backport.html > > Is there a 2.2 port? Is there plans to do one? Was it tried and found > that there are significant > obstacles in the way of getting 2.2 to run under CentOS 4.4? Very significant obstacles ... everything needs to be recompiled to use the new version. And even then, it breaks things. It is possible, if you rebuild enough stuff. However ... once you rebuild all that, might as well be using Fedora Core. Especially since you need to keep rebuilding it every update. > Is there a > port of 2.2 planned > for 5.0? RHEL-5b2 does contain httpd-2.2, so CentOS-5 will as well when released. > Is it a question of resources, and should we undertake it, do > you guys want the > resulting i686 RPM's? > > Comment Karanbir? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20070117/f2df25cb/attachment-0004.sig>