-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 André,
On 7/15/2011 4:23 AM, André Warnier wrote: > I would suppose that RedHat has good lawyers, and that they are > "allowed" to do such a thing. Personally, I find this a bit > "cheeky", specially from a company that presents itself as a champion > of Open Source. It is not an unmitigated feeling, because on the > other hand I also recognise that mod_jk is a complex piece of > software, and that supporting it for customers certainly has a cost. Yes, it does cost money. Odd that they have httpd packages available but not the mod_jk package. As we've said many times on this list, it's trivial to build. Package managers can easily support it. Debian does it, why not Red Hat? > In the practice thus, it probably means that a number of people will > no longer use mod_jk on RHEL systems in the future, and I find this a > pity, because even from a purely technical point of view, it is > always better to have some alternatives. It's just not feasible for Apache to supply binaries for every environment. Apache cannot force RHEL to provide a package. - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk4gmbkACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PB5tgCgjGeDXQ5l9sxLQQ7Bru7bpTuc N1kAnAxUFN8z/mLTAYh2TPH6yGMZIuQ6 =HyIf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
