Quoting Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, 2002-07-27 at 02:36, Mike Anderson wrote: > > Now that Apache 2.0 has been released, when/how should we deliver the > > mod_jk plugin (the 1.2.0 version from jtc) for Apache 2.0. Since the > > magic number changes between builds, we can't put a version out there > > that will work with all possible versions. Should we just try and keep > > up with the current Apache 2.0 (currently 2.0.39)? > > Anything below 2.0.39 has security issues and should not be used in > production. So, it shouldn't even be supported. 2.0.39 should be the > starting point.
yes, and 2.0.39 is an official release, we should release a mod_jk at each Apache 2.0 release. And may be at one time, httpd team will no more make the version number matching mandatory for modules. > > Should we update all > > of the possible tomcat releases (currently 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 4.0.4, 4.1.7 > > Beta) when Apache updates? > > I reckon that's going to be a lot of work. Unless there are security > issues, we should focus on what's current. In other words, the current > stable version from each branch. Anything else, build from source or use > the old version. > > If someone contributes a binary, then by all means, it should be > published, but otherwise it shouldn't be a target. When I'll be back from hollidays, I'll tag mod_jk 1.2.0 and release a source tarball. And after that I'll make the binaries for Apache 1.3 (with and without SSL) and Apache 2.0 for Linux (i386 and maybe also PowerPC). I think Nacho could produce at that time the IIS redirector, Mike netware and others Apache 1.3/2.0 for Windows (I could take a look in making a mod_jk for cygwin). BTW, I return to my wet paint ;[ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
