James Carlson wrote: > That plan, though, *does* call into question the reason for the > existence of /usr/apache. If overwriting is the new upgrade policy, > and is acceptable to customers ordinarily using /usr/apache2, then I > think it's fair to ask that the much older /usr/apache be nuked. The > policy that created the separate directories is dead -- offering an > upgrade from 1.x to 2.2 but not from 2.0 to 2.2 makes no sense to me. > > What I'd like to know is: > > - Are there things that depend on the 0.mumble libraries > associated with 2.0? Someone mentioned subversion; does > that need to be changed first or at the same time as this > project?
Subversion does indeed depend on the current /usr/apache2. When /usr/apache2 is overwritten, Subversion must go through a full regression test against the new Apache 2.2.4 bits. > > - Is there any reason to have 2.0 and 2.2 on the same system? > Is there a plausible case in which someone would need them > both? The potential benefit of having both 2.0 and 2.2 coexist (for a known and finite period of time) is to give customers time to port/rewrite/test their non-thread-safe modules written for 2.0.x mpm-prefork to 2.2.4 mpm-worker. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman Sun Microsystems, Inc. Stefan.Teleman at Sun.COM
