Am 26.01.2017 um 00:20 schrieb David Zuelke:
On 20.01.2017, at 21:37, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote:
On 20 Jan 2017, at 7:47 PM, David Zuelke <d...@heroku.com> wrote:
I'd actually like to question the whole practice of porting features back to
older branches. I think that's the core reason why trunk is in total disarray,
and why no substantial releases have been made. There is just no reason for
anyone to push forward the state of 2.6 or even 3.0 if you can just backport
whatever you want.
The reason this is bad is because Apache httpd comes with a module ecosystem -
when you move from httpd v2.0 to v2.2 to v2.4 to v2.6, or rules are that the
ABI can break, and therefore all modules that depend on that version must be
recompiled. This includes modules that are closed source and offered by a
proprietary vendor, or are open source but provided in binary form by a distro.
Yeah, I hadn't considered proprietary modules.
To take the PHP example, ABI and API changes are usually minimal, so most
extensions build pretty cleanly; if not, then they can be fixed, and with most
stuff on GitHub these days, that's usually a PR away. Development cycles of
extensions have definitely sped up together with the language runtime.
Do people who run a non-distro httpd really install distro-provided modules
though?
yes - i build httpd, mod_security, apr, php, pecl-extensions from source
(own rpm packages) but don't want to maintain the whole subversion
package and it's build-dependencies too (mod_dav_svn)
but on the other hand in that case i won't jump to the next httpd
release until the distribution (Fedora) does, at least not for a larger
timeframe than prepare the upgrade on a testing vm
