Re: Question about maintaining the unofficial/parallel apache-lingerd package.
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Alexis Sukrieh wrote: I'm maintaining an unofficial package, apache-lingerd [1]. It's a new flavour of the official Debian apache source tree. it's been more than 4 years since i last had to remember all the details surrounding linger... but the main reason apache does linger the way it does is because that is the only portable solution -- SO_LINGER was broken almost everywhere at the time. i'm pretty sure SO_LINGER works in linux kernels as of at least 2.4... and there's also the linux-specific TCP_LINGER2 (see tcp(7)). is it possible that you could use either of these to get the same performance benefit in a manner that could just be part of the standard deb apache-1.3 package? -dean
Re: Question about maintaining the unofficial/parallel apache-lingerd package.
* dean gaudet | On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: | | 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. | | aw... please don't remove 1.3... | | even though i was one of the authors of apache 2.0 i had to give up | on the project after the thing become bloated beyond sanity. i | trust 1.3 and i don't trust 2.0. If somebody steps up to maintain it, then they are free to have it (post sarge). I suspect nobody will, though. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: Question about maintaining the unofficial/parallel apache-lingerd package.
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) disait : There's not really any point in doing much work on the apache 1 branch. Apache 1 is dead upstream (or, low activity security-fixes only-mode) and will be orphaned by the Debian maintainers once Sarge is out the door Yes, things are sounding like that. Again, that's why I was asking for help about making a side-package. I won't be surprised if apache-lingerd get into Debian only in a parallel way. Even though, I think that it can be nice for some Debian users to have it inside Debian, and if this need someone to handle the maintenance, I'm strongly willing to do it ;) * Jonas Meurer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) disait : i see no objections against merging apache-lingerd and apache-modconf-lingerd. apache-lingerd could include the dpkg-divert stuff and provide a patched apache-modconf itself. i see no usage for a seperate apache-modconf-lingerd package. Don't forget that apache-common provides also the default config files : $ dpkg -L apache-common | grep default-conf /usr/share/apache/default-configs /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache/srm.conf /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache/access.conf /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache/httpd.conf /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache/intro.html /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache-perl /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache-perl/srm.conf /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache-perl/access.conf /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache-perl/httpd.conf /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache-perl/intro.html /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache-ssl /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache-ssl/srm.conf /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache-ssl/access.conf /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache-ssl/httpd.conf /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache-ssl/intro.html So apache-common-lingerd should provide the same files for lingerd : /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache-lingerd /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache-lingerd/srm.conf /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache-lingerd/access.conf /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache-lingerd/httpd.conf /usr/share/apache/default-configs/apache-lingerd/intro.html So I see a real good point in keeping this architecture, we are close to the official package one moreover. Alexis. -- Alexis Sukrieh [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Another Linux Debian Geek Enthusiast * http://www.sukria.net * http://www.debian.org - Just for code.
Re: Question about maintaining the unofficial/parallel apache-lingerd package.
-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.
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.
* 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.
Question about maintaining the unofficial/parallel apache-lingerd package.
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 : - If I make a package in my personal repository with a version number higher than the official package, users can get confused with apt-get upgrade (would upgrade to my apache package even if they don't want my lingerd package). - If I use the same version number, it won't work. Indeed, as every flavour, apache-lingerd depends on apache-common which provides /usr/sbin/apache-modconf. The official apache-modconf does not support apache-lingerd but my version does. What would be, to you, the best way of numbering an unofficial package which is already existing, with the same name in Debian ? That's a really special case I guess and I haven't found yet a good solution. Any help/comment/idea is welcome. Other advices about maintaining a patched debian package is also welcome. Regards, Alexis. 1 : http://www.sukria.net/packages/apache-lingerd/ -- Alexis Sukrieh [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Another Linux Debian Geek Enthusiast * http://www.sukria.net * http://www.debian.org - Just for code.
