On Mar 3, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Juan Manuel Palacios <j...@macports.org> wrote: > I’m sure there’s a lot of people running Apache 2.2 whose systems (probably > highly customized configurations) would break if we did that without some > kind of transition, because it’d definitely be a backwards-incompatible change
we don't really do anything generally to help people update configs for ports when the config format changes. Keeping old versions of stuff around forever isn't really a good solution (apache22 is OK for now, but once upstream stops releasing security updates for it, we're doing a dis-service to our users if we keep it around). Anyone using macports-provided software to provide critical services can't blindly do 'port upgrade outdated' anyway. >> If there is, I think it's reasonable to have apache2 be the upstream >> recommended apache 2 (2.4.x) > > But this would not be possible without the backwards incompatible change, > because even if we introduce apache22, the plain apache2 would move from 2.2 > to 2.4, which I don’t think we should do, at least not without some kind of > transition. If someone is willing to put the effort in to maintain it, I'm not opposed - but I don't think we need to do more than have some port notes with a reference to the upstream "upgrading to 2.4" docs. Creating a bunch of 'dead end' ports may "keep things working" for users at the expense of not letting them know they're running old/outdated versions of things. -- Daniel J. Luke _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
