On 11/23/2014 4:53 PM, Victor J. Orlikowski wrote: > On Nov 23, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com > <mailto:traw...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Docker would not be the right solution for someone who wants to use >> httpd over the long haul (future updates to httpd+libs while maintain >> existing config, etc.); beyond the complication of container layers to >> manage this properly, these folks should have packaging that's managed >> like other software on their system so that they don't have to learn >> any new concepts > > Hrm. > > To my mind, at least on RPM-based distributions, that sounds like a set > of prefixed RPM packages, that install into a non-default system > location, and that can be built from APR-Util/APR/httpd source trees. > > To be a bit more specific: a buildrpm.sh that takes a templated spec > file, does the needed configure and make, and drops out a set of > packages that would install things under /opt/local. > > That about sound about right, Jeff? >
Again, you're focusing on the packages, but not on configuration changes, which I think is what Jeff was trying to point out to begin with. I'm pretty sure that there's even a .spec file somewhere that the project used to maintain, and possibly still does. The package upgrade is easy, but non-backwards-compatible changes, like the historic ones between 1.3 and 2.0, and the recent ones between 2.0/2.2 and 2.4 are the hard part.
