On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 03:15:11PM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote: > In particular, I don't think our main > page or download page is currently clear enough about the status of > 1.3 development. I think we should say something like: > > "The Apache HTTP Server version 1.3 is not recommended and is not > being actively developed. It /may/ continue to receive updates for > major security issues, but other updates are unlikely. We recommend > that you choose version 2.2 in its place."
Good point. Fact is that many ISPs here in germany still use 1.3 for whatever reasons. They should be "convinced of the pros" of apache 2.x -- and if they told us the reasons why they do not use it, perhaps we could fix something in the 2.x branches. Fact is also that people with ancient dialects of Unix and dynamic loading (~1992) have no choice but to use apache 1.3's "httpd -R runpath" kludge for starting a modularized apache (2.x never supported that kludge). The number of such systems is close to zero, of course. > Unlike Bill's manifesto, this statement is not meant to constrain the > developers, but simply to communicate the current state of development > to the users. <aol /> Martin -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Fujitsu Siemens http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/imprint.html | 81730 Munich, Germany
