Daniel Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 11:01:49AM -0500, Ardo_Vanrangelrooij wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 12:36:37AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > > From: Ardo van Rangelrooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: Johnie Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org > > > > Subject: proposal for an Apache (web server) task force > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I would like to propose to form an Apache (web server) task force to > > > > maintain the > > > > Apache packages currently maintained by Johnie Ingram (netgod) (and > > > > potentially > > > > related packages if the need arises). The current state of Apache and > > > > the recent > > > > need to fix at least some of the outstanding bugs led me to the > > > > conclusion a more > > > > active maintenance of these packages is needed. The intend of this > > > > proposal is > > > > not to simply take over the packages (although it might come to that), > > > > but to help > > > > in the maintenance of them. > > > > > > Yes, the bug list is huge. I'm not subscribed to -devel, but this thread > > > was mentioned on IRC and thus forwarded to me. > > > > > > > As the first step I propose to add an Uploaders field to the package > > > > (once we have > > > > a list of people). > > > > > > > > Some of the other things this task force would do are > > > > > > > > - writing up guidelines for packaging Apache modules (a kind of policy > > > > doc) > > > > - migration to Apache 2 (IIRC an ITP for this has already been filed > > > > by somebody) > > > > > > "What is 'not on a cold day in hell'?" ;) > > > > And you react like this exactly why? Perhaps I should have said 'could' > > instead of > > 'would' and make the second item 'support in migrating to Apache2'. I > > certainly didn't > > want to imply that you and Thom would be out of business because of this. > > But I'm sure > > that we cannot drop Apache2 in place and assume everything keeps working > > fine without > > a hitch. I was merely thinking that this task force could participate in > > testing and > > porting stuff over. There's no need to feel threatened by this proposal. > > You're work > > is appreciated. > > No, I don't feel at all threatened, it's just that apache2 is still in > alpha and nowhere near ready to replace apache; not by a long shot.
I see. All the more reason to get the current version in a better shape as it will be around for quite a while. > > > Thom May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and myself are maintaining apache2. If you > > > want to > > > email anything related, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the address; that > > > goes to both of us. Currently it's not in Debian because Thom's laptop > > > has blown up. He did very extensive hacking on said laptop (which was > > > really cool), and it's back in the UK (irony, since he's a Pom > > > backpacker here in .au) getting fixed. There were no backups or > > > anything, so I'm just waiting from some stuff from Thom's tree. > > > > > > In the meantime, I've toyed with modperl-2.0 and php4 for apache2. I got > > > a successful install of php4 after an apache2 install, but I need to do > > > silly build and apache2 voodoo to get it integrated. I'm currently > > > working on it, but I don't exactly have a lot of time. > > > > > > The current place for my packages is > > > http://kabuki.sfarc.net/apache2/README. Note that this is strictly > > > non-US due to modules/ssl and modules/tls in the apache2 source. These > > > packages don't include mod_perl2 and php4; if you want you can grab them > > > from CVS and attempt to build. > > > > > > > I also propose to set up a mailing list for this. > > > > > > Feel free, but apache2 is nowhere near ready for prime-time. Hell, they > > > haven't even agreed on a release that should be a beta candidate since > > > 2.0.18, which was ... a long time ago. I'd give it probably more than a > > > year before I even thought about letting it loose in production. > > > > I didn't expect the migration to happen overnight. But there are certainly > > a > > lot of gotchas when moving to Apache2 which need to be sorted out and > > resolved. > > If we have a year to do this, all the better given the time certain things > > might take. > > I think that we need to maintain them separately for quite some time; > even when apache2 *does* replace apache, we should still have an apache1 > package. Absolutely. I haven't looked at Apache2 at all yet, but I can imagine that the APIs have changed too, so every package build against Apache1 will have to have a separate binary build against Apache2. But I see the task force as a means to facilitate all this with guidelines for building and packaging, and testing, etc. to make the transition as smooth as possible. Thanks, Ardo -- Ardo van Rangelrooij home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo PGP fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9
