Suse like many others major Linux distributions do not follow the release rate since they should be sure that they won't break anything in their users/customers settings after jumping from 2.0.49 to say 2.0.54.
To resume the question from Peter, who is the Suse Apache rpm mainteners, was more to see if it was a known bug may be solved in later release. Regards 2005/6/8, Bill Stoddard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dr. Peter Poeml wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:08:35AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > >>On 6/8/05, Dr. Peter Poeml <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>>On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 05:57:39AM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote: > >>> > >>>>On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 10:04:03 +0100, Henri Gomez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>Nobody to wonder about this bug ? > >>>> > >>>>sure; note that you're using old code (2.0.49/2.0.49) which isn't > >>>>supported here anyway since we don't know what code is in it (SuSE) > >>> > >>>(sorry about the late reply) > >>> > >>>The apache shipped by SUSE is basically built from the pristine sources. > >>>A package named 2.0.49 would contain exactly version 2.0.49, except for > >>>- changes of configuration (I always complied 100% to the old license :) > >>>- security fixes, which are added later (inevitably) > >>>- and, since the codebase was relicensed under the Apache License 2.0 > >>> and it is now allowed to do that, an occasional important fix from > >>> later released versions of the respective branch > >> > >>I didn't mean to imply that there is anything at all wrong with taking > >>pristine Apache sources and turning it into a product, with the > >>ncessary modifications (applying security fixes == modifying). After > >>all, that's a major part of the job that pays my mortgage. There are > >>a number of vendors who do this. > > > > [...] > > > > After I found your reply a bit puzzling at first, I think I understand > > it now ;) I realize that I should add to my previous posting that I did > > not mean to say that you should be expected to support vendor packages. > > If it sounded like that, it wasn't my intention. > > > > It's just that you said you didn't know what code is in there, which > > implied that there could be arbitrary modifications, > > No, this is not the issue at all... Let me try to explain via an extreme > example to make the point. > > I can download Apache 2.0.32 from the subversion repository. Then I use > 2.0.32, and randomly apply 73 patches > that have gone into the source code repository between 2.0.32 and today > (2.0.54). I complie that server and it > has bugs. All the code in my Apache HTTP Server 2.0.32 + 73 patches is -all- > available from the ASF. Would it > be reasonable for me to expect this community to help me debug that server? > Even if I tell the community which > 73 patches I applied, is it still reasonable to expect this community to help > me debug that server? The > answer is -no-, it is not reasonable. > > To drive the point home a bit more deeply... What would you say if I told you > that aside from two standalone > modules (mod_ibm_ssl and mod_ibm_ldap) that all the other code in the core > IBM HTTP Server (v2) is available > from the ASF (either via the source code repository or the mailing list > archives)? Does that mean this > community should be expected to help 'support' the "ASF portion" of IBM HTTP > Server? Absoulutely not. > > Bill (who's is happy you found the solution to your problem) > >
