On 04/02/2014 11:10 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
Having a few moments today to bring a production server up to date, I checked
www.archlinux.org for any current warnings about breakage or that user
interaction would be required for update. Finding none, I updated, and on reboot
Apache 2.4 was d
2014-04-02 17:10 GMT-03:00 David C. Rankin :
>
> Thanks for the hard work, and so far, the sky hasn't fallen since the
> apache
> 2.4 update. Just don't get rid of mod_php, mod_fastcgi + php-fpm isn't a
> drop in
> replacement in all cases.
>
I am planning to publish a mod_php (php-zts) compati
All,
The upgrade to apache 2.4 can present a real challenge for those relying on
mod_php, mod_ssl and vhosts. On 2/27 on Arch-dev, Pierre suggested: "Anyway, I
suggest in the end we should post an announcement on the front page." He was
right.
Having a few moments today to bring a production
On 04/12/13 14:49, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> Hi
>
>> Exactly. AFAIK, we have no-one interested in maintaining apache-2.4.
>> I'm sure we could have apache22 and apache (2.4) otherwise.
>
> If no-one from core developers wants to maintain this package could
> you please move apache and modules to c
Hi
> Exactly. AFAIK, we have no-one interested in maintaining apache-2.4.
> I'm sure we could have apache22 and apache (2.4) otherwise.
If no-one from core developers wants to maintain this package could
you please move apache and modules to community repo? There are TU who
will help to maintain
On 04/12/13 07:59, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 03.12.2013 16:37, schrieb David C. Rankin:
>> The 2.2->2.4 update represents a "major" update to crucial parts of apache
>> including:
>
> This is exactly the reason why the new version should be provided by
> Arch itself and not some "third-pa
Hi,
Am 03.12.2013 16:37, schrieb David C. Rankin:
> The 2.2->2.4 update represents a "major" update to crucial parts of apache
> including:
This is exactly the reason why the new version should be provided by
Arch itself and not some "third-party" AUR packages.
> For something as fundamental to
For something as fundamental to server operations as apache, Arch should
continue to provide 2.2 as the core package while providing 2.4 in testing for
an extended period.
This sounds very Debianish. I haven't seen the same approach for any
other package in Arch Linux. Please correct me if I
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:37:19AM -0600, David C. Rankin wrote:
> On 12/02/2013 04:43 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> > What I am trying to say is that keeping software up-to-date is one of
> > the main maintainer's responsibilities. Especially in Arch Linux that
> > "strives to stay bleeding edge, an
On 12/02/2013 04:43 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> What I am trying to say is that keeping software up-to-date is one of
> the main maintainer's responsibilities. Especially in Arch Linux that
> "strives to stay bleeding edge, and typically offers the latest stable
> versions of most software" (quote
Hi,
I don't really care about Apache specifically but I feel the need to
chime in.
On 12/02/2013 09:06 PM, Leonid Isaev wrote:
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 11:32:13 -0800
Anatol Pomozov wrote:
Hi,
This situation with apache-2.4 reminds me recent saga with libxml2
update. libxml2 was marked out-of-d
Hi
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 11:32:13 -0800
> Anatol Pomozov wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This situation with apache-2.4 reminds me recent saga with libxml2
>> update. libxml2 was marked out-of-date for 9 months and maintainer
>> ignored requests about up
Apache 2.2.15 was pushed in 07/2013. This situation hardly qualifies as "lost
interest". If you desperately need 2.4.7 and are absolutely sure that it is
compatible with 2.2 why not just compile it yourself?
We have both Python 2 and Python 3 in official repos.
The same could apply to Apache I b
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 11:32:13 -0800
Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This situation with apache-2.4 reminds me recent saga with libxml2
> update. libxml2 was marked out-of-date for 9 months and maintainer
> ignored requests about upgrading the package. The only explanation was
> "if maintainer does
Hi,
This situation with apache-2.4 reminds me recent saga with libxml2
update. libxml2 was marked out-of-date for 9 months and maintainer
ignored requests about upgrading the package. The only explanation was
"if maintainer does not upgrade the package there must be a good
reason for it - new vers
On 11/21/13 at 01:41pm, Guus Snijders wrote:
> Op 21 nov. 2013 12:02 schreef "Karol Babioch" het
> volgende:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am 20.11.2013 07:28, schrieb William Giokas:
> > > I really think that the argument that is presented there is quite
> > > awful.
> >
> > Yes, I think so, too. A rolling
Op 21 nov. 2013 12:02 schreef "Karol Babioch" het
volgende:
>
> Hi,
>
> Am 20.11.2013 07:28, schrieb William Giokas:
> > I really think that the argument that is presented there is quite
> > awful.
>
> Yes, I think so, too. A rolling release shouldn't hold back new versions
> for months because a
On 11/20/2013 05:21 AM, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> I'm just curious as to why we're still on apache-2.2, at one point I think
> I assumed it was a php thing, but php-5.5 got lauched a bit ago and I can
> think of at least one php application I tried to run which wouldn't work on
> it, so that's probabl
Hi,
Am 20.11.2013 07:28, schrieb William Giokas:
> I really think that the argument that is presented there is quite
> awful.
Yes, I think so, too. A rolling release shouldn't hold back new versions
for months because a specific Maintainer doesn't like it for quite
subjective reasons.
> If anyt
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:46:55PM +0800, Chris Down wrote:
> On 2013-11-19 22:21:13 -0600, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> > I'm just curious as to why we're still on apache-2.2, at one point I think
> > I assumed it was a php thing, but php-5.5 got lauched a bit ago and I can
> > think of at least one php
On 2013-11-19 22:21:13 -0600, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> I'm just curious as to why we're still on apache-2.2, at one point I think
> I assumed it was a php thing, but php-5.5 got lauched a bit ago and I can
> think of at least one php application I tried to run which wouldn't work on
> it, so that's p
I'm just curious as to why we're still on apache-2.2, at one point I think
I assumed it was a php thing, but php-5.5 got lauched a bit ago and I can
think of at least one php application I tried to run which wouldn't work on
it, so that's probably not it.
--
Caleb Cushing
http://xenoterracide.co
On 07/11/2013 04:44 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 11.07.2013 15:45, schrieb Armin K.:
>>> As a side note, apache24 uses event_mpm by default, but you might need
>>> to change to prefork one to use PHP module. Also, with apache 2.4 you
>>> can use php-fpm via mod_proxy as described at [3]
>>>
>>> A
Am 11.07.2013 15:45, schrieb Armin K.:
>> As a side note, apache24 uses event_mpm by default, but you might need
>> to change to prefork one to use PHP module. Also, with apache 2.4 you
>> can use php-fpm via mod_proxy as described at [3]
>>
>> As for the perl module, I had to use svn checkout of t
On 07/07/2013 12:35 AM, Armin K. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've wondered why no one upgraded Apache to 2.4 after being available
> for so long. Then I stumbled upon an answer on this list where it has
> been said that 2.4 breaks too many packages [1].
>
> I've taken some time to verify what does it bre
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Armin K. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've wondered why no one upgraded Apache to 2.4 after being available
> for so long. Then I stumbled upon an answer on this list where it has
> been said that 2.4 breaks too many packages [1].
>
> I've taken some time to verify what does
Hello,
I've wondered why no one upgraded Apache to 2.4 after being available
for so long. Then I stumbled upon an answer on this list where it has
been said that 2.4 breaks too many packages [1].
I've taken some time to verify what does it break, and fixed all
packages from [extra] and [community
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> Hi
> Does anyone know what the plans might be for apache 2.4 in testing?
>
> Thanks!
>
> gene
>
When it's ready
--
Jelle van der Waa
Hi
Does anyone know what the plans might be for apache 2.4 in testing?
Thanks!
gene
29 matches
Mail list logo
