Stefan Teleman writes:
> James Carlson wrote:
> > Octave Orgeron writes:
> >> So are we going with keeping apache2, doing apache2.2, or collapsing
> >> the apaches into apache/<version> ?
> >
> > The current proposal on the table is to leave the existing /usr/apache
> > in place, and overwrite /usr/apache2 with the contents of apache2.2.
> >
> > It stays that way until the submitter (Stefan Teleman) decides to
> > submit a new spec.
>
> Does the ARC have
That'd be ARC members, not the ARC itself. ;-}
> any preferences in this respect (2.2.4 location) ? It's a
> fairly simple change for me.
I don't think changing the location makes any difference at all unless
there's a different plan in place.
In other words, as long as the plan is to make the older 2.0 bits
inaccessible (whether removed or overwritten), it doesn't matter so
much where the 2.2 bits are installed.
That plan, though, *does* call into question the reason for the
existence of /usr/apache. If overwriting is the new upgrade policy,
and is acceptable to customers ordinarily using /usr/apache2, then I
think it's fair to ask that the much older /usr/apache be nuked. The
policy that created the separate directories is dead -- offering an
upgrade from 1.x to 2.2 but not from 2.0 to 2.2 makes no sense to me.
What I'd like to know is:
- Are there things that depend on the 0.mumble libraries
associated with 2.0? Someone mentioned subversion; does
that need to be changed first or at the same time as this
project?
- Is there any reason to have 2.0 and 2.2 on the same system?
Is there a plausible case in which someone would need them
both?
It'd be nice to see some simplification here.
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
