Totally agree. That's why we as mod_proxy commit to cutting a release of
the web server too. Then users have what they want, in one package. Or a
generic "apache rollup" build with the non-core modules put in.
Mod_rewrite too?
Chuck
On Thursday, April 19, 2001, at 04:24 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Chuck Murcko wrote:
>
>> Hey, I was talking to Theo and he suggested we try doing something for
>> proxy like the FreeBSD ports idea: when someone installs, they try to
>> go
>> get the latest releases of proxy, etc. from somewhere.
>>
>> What do you guys think? It might make the outcome of the current
>> new-httpd discussion workable.
>
> To be honest, I'm not sure if much of this hybrid
> splitting-off-bits-of-server stuff is that good an idea.
>
> The first and main concern should always be ease of use for the end
> user. This is currently not as good as it should be, splitting
> everything off simply makes it worse.
>
> When I was involved with the Ericsson webserver farm, upgrading the
> server took absolute ages and was a complete pain in the ass - httpd,
> the mod_ssl patches, external LDAP modules, our custom fixes that had
> not made it into the server yet had to be combined, compiled and built -
> a task that took over two hours, following our custom HOWTO and
> incorporating the back-out plan. This nightmare needs to get easier in
> v2.0 - not worse.
>
> However we decide to handle the actual development (separate CVS,
> whatever) the key important thing is that an "official" Apache release
> includes a stable version of APR, APR-util, Proxy, etc all inside the
> box, and all the user has to do is unpack the code, ./configure
> --options ; make ; make install.
>
> If we don't do this, as far as the end user is concerned none of these
> functions will exist, simply because it's too much work to enable them,
> and useful functionality will be lost.
>
Chuck Murcko
Topsail Group
http://www.topsail.org/
