[arch-general] apache 2.4

AK aakempf at gmail.com
Mon Dec 2 15:23:06 EST 2013


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 <anatol.pomozov at gmail.com> 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 libxml2 was marked out-of-date for 9 months and maintainer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 not upgrade the package there must be a good
>> reason for it - new version probably breaks other apps". But it end up
>> that the new libxml2 package did not break anyone and upgrade was very
>> simple - it was just a version bump and no dependencies rebuild was
>> needed. I made a conclusion that maintainer just lost interest in
>> supporting libxml2.
> What exactly are you complaining about? Apache 2.2 is still supported
> upstream (2.2.26 was released on 11/16/2013 -- two weeks ago). Apache 2.4 is
> just another branch. So why is apache-2.2 old?

"We consider the Apache HTTP Server 2.4 release to be the best version 
of Apache available, and encourage users of 2.2 and all prior versions 
to upgrade. This 2.2 maintenance release is offered for those unable to 
upgrade at this time." [1]

Because upstream itself says so?

>> Could it be the same situation with apache-2.2 package? If the
>> maintainer lost interest would it be better to drop Apache to
>> 'community' repo where it has higher chance to be upgraded? IMHO it is
>> shame for Arch to keep old versions of software without clear
>> explanation, 2.4.1 was released almost 2 years ago!
> 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?
> Cheers,

"Arch Linux strives to maintain the latest stable release versions of 
its software as long as systemic package breakage can be reasonably 
avoided." [2]

I thought Arch strives to be as up-to-date and bleeding edge as 
possible? So the question is if there is systematic breakage and if not, 
why there is no Apache 2.4 package available in the official 
repositories. Sure, people can compile it themselves but why do they 
have to?

[1] https://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/Announcement2.2.html
[2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Linux

More information about the arch-general mailing list