Re: Why Redhat 8.0 / 9.0 still use 2.0.40 (+ security fixes)
Mark J Cox wrote: For those who wonder why Redhat didn't update Apache 2.0 in distro 8.0 and 9.0, just read : http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_backport.html Apache httpd was an example that I happened to remember when writing that explanation - Apache is far from the worst offender to mix security updates with other changes in a new release ;) Hi Mark, I understand your concern, and also the quantity of works to release all the related modules (php, mod_perl...), but there is many users who need latest Apache 2.0 since they have to use extended functionnalities (ie mod_deflate logs) or because some modules need them. The problem we encountered in mod_jk was that in 2.0.40 there is no support for apxs -q LIBTOOL and so users couldn't built mod_jk 1.2.4 under Redhat 8.0 or 9.0 (I sent a TRICK to tomcat-dev and tomcat-user lists to overcome this limitation). I get a least one mail by day from happy users for my 'alternate apache rpm' provided at falsehope.com (apache 2.0.46 with mpm). http://rpmfind.net//linux/RPM/falsehope/home/gomez/apache2/apache2-2.0.46-1.7.2.i386.html Regards
Re: Why Redhat 8.0 / 9.0 still use 2.0.40 (+ security fixes)
At 06:47 AM 6/27/2003, Mark J Cox wrote: For those who wonder why Redhat didn't update Apache 2.0 in distro 8.0 and 9.0, just read : http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_backport.html Apache httpd was an example that I happened to remember when writing that explanation - Apache is far from the worst offender to mix security updates with other changes in a new release ;) This is a good example of why Jeff Trawick and I spent many posts arguing the benefits of maintaining binary compatibility from update to update within the remaining releases of Apache 2.0 :-) Unfortunately, that doesn't help 2.0.40 deployments or earlier. Bill
Why Redhat 8.0 / 9.0 still use 2.0.40 (+ security fixes)
For those who wonder why Redhat didn't update Apache 2.0 in distro 8.0 and 9.0, just read : http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_backport.html
Re: Why Redhat 8.0 / 9.0 still use 2.0.40 (+ security fixes)
For those who wonder why Redhat didn't update Apache 2.0 in distro 8.0 and 9.0, just read : http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_backport.html Apache httpd was an example that I happened to remember when writing that explanation - Apache is far from the worst offender to mix security updates with other changes in a new release ;) Mark -- Mark J Cox ... www.awe.com/mark Apache Software Foundation . OpenSSL Group . Apache Week editor
