Re: Question about maintaining the unofficial/parallel apache-lingerd package.

2004-11-21 Thread Fabio Massimo Di Nitto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexis Sukrieh wrote:
| Hello there.
|
| I'm maintaining an unofficial package, apache-lingerd [1].
| It's a new flavour of the official Debian apache source tree.
|
| As it won't be included in Debian, and as some users requested me
| to maintain the package against the last sid packages, I'm a little bit
| confused :
|
Alexis, with all respect, you have send out this mail after only 2 days you have
tried to contact me in private and i had no time to answer. I find a bit 
annoying
that you jump to conclusion so fast.
I understand that there is a possible request for your packages, but as I 
already
explained to you, adding another flavour of apache is not necessarely simple.
Also, I was going to ask you to discuss the security history of lingerd together
with out security team as next step.
If we need to add this flavour, we need to know first if it has any security
complication or bad security history.
Did you also consider to start creating patches for all modules so that they
can use lingerd?
As personal opinion I need to agree with Tollef, that apache1.3 is basically
a dead package and it might get removed from Debian after Sarge is released.
That means providing only security support to it.
Are you ready to give such commitment to your package? What I really don't want
is to endup maintaing another flavour on my own and i guess this is the same
for the other memebers of the team.
Fabio
- --
Self-Service law:
The last available dish of the food you have decided to eat, will be
inevitably taken from the person in front of you.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBoDwshCzbekR3nhgRAlh/AJ9CMoFmGfCgFkq2TQIBHvU+XnxVWwCeN+7n
rLo/ZyMkHKDbD47IW6AlQYI=
=pg4V
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



RE: Question about maintaining the unofficial/parallel apache-lingerd package.

2004-11-21 Thread Adam Conrad
Alexis Sukrieh wrote:
 
 Reading the INSTALL file of lingerd, only mod_ssl would need a
 particular patch, so we could imagine an apache-ssl-lingerd flavour.
 
 As there is an apache-perl flavour we also might think to an
 apache-perl-lingerd flavour.

Better off just having users install apache-lingerd + mod_ssl + mod_perl
(and working with the mod_ssl maintainer to make sure it has the support
patches required to support lingerd properly).  Adding three new
flavours for the sake of one piece of functionality is a support
nightmare.  Notice that there's no apache-ssl-perl package either.

... Adam




Re: Question about maintaining the unofficial/parallel apache-lingerd package.

2004-11-21 Thread Alexis Sukrieh
* Adam Conrad ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) disait :
 Adding three new flavours for the sake of one piece of functionality
 is a support nightmare.  Notice that there's no apache-ssl-perl 
 package either. 

Right. I completely agree with that (note that all my work is focused 
on apache-lingerd. 

Fabio asked me if I was aware of the work needed for other modules, I
was just answering wich modules *would* need anothrer work.

- The only module that need a particular patch is ssl.

- And as there is flavour for mod_perl, we could imagine that providing
  lingerd on it would need another flavour.

That was just my answer to the needs of other patches related to
lingerd.

IMO, apache-perl-lingerd and apache-ssl-lingerd would not be as 
requested as apache-lingerd is, and provinding it in Debian is not
as needed as apache-lingerd could be.

Alexis.

-- 
Alexis Sukrieh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
* Another Linux Debian Geek Enthusiast
* http://www.sukria.net
* http://www.debian.org - Just for code.