Darren J Moffat writes: > > I would prefer to leave this as a straight 2.2.4 for 2.0 > > replacement and open a subsequent case for the EOL/EOF of Apache 1.x. > > That is fine with me.
With the clarification that this case seeks Minor release binding, and the fact that 2.0 is in S10, what's the upgrade story for users going from S10 to S10+1? Since we're reusing the same path, it sounds like applications may just break after upgrading, and there's no way to do a transition. Is that correct? Does this case also cover upgrading subversion from libapr-0.9 to libapr-1.2? If not, then is delivery of this project dependent on a future case that does this upgrade? We've already approved subversion in Solaris (PSARC 2006/563), so I think this project is incomplete if it doesn't address the compatibility issue. The only answer I've seen so far is from Stefan Teleman saying that subversion would have to go through a "full regression test" -- whatever that means -- but no indication of who would actually do the work to switch this over, and whether that delivery is part of this project, or if the existing SUNWsvn just stops working. Given that Apache2 is part of Solaris, I want to see details on how the dependencies are met before seeing this case approved -- whether fast-track or not. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
