DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34607>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34607 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-11 17:18 ------- (In reply to comment #12) > Since SSL Upgrade wasn't accepted for backport to 2.0, I'm guessing we won't > rally the support for backporting this either, well, sure I'm all after getting folks to use latest. Unfortunately that is not always possible. There are many many users out who are bound to a specific Apache line, f.e. many Oracle users are still stick with the 1.3.x line; on NetWare we have the issue that we have a couple of non-opensource modules which we have only for 2.0.x line available, and this situation will never change I guess; f.e. we have an iPrint module running on 2.0.x line, and we cant users just force to upgrade to later 2.2.x since they would loose iPrint functionality. Same goes for at least 4 other modules too; so this might be a reason why Brad suggested backporting SSL Upgrade. I think that such situations with commercial Apache modules happen to a lot of users on other platforms too, and we should probably discuss this again from this point of view. Currently I see no good reason why we should force those users to either go without these enhancements, or to patch self / use unofficial builds. Gün. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
