Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Joey J wrote: Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low?? The Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for some time and looking at the improvements I see significant value in several. I don't see any reason why anybody wouldn't want to use it but the community seems to think it's bad. What am I missing?? Current market share: http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all -Joey J Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries. For example, when Ubuntu upgraded to Apache-2.4.x the normal upgrade process bricked every single domain being served. I was able to find the fix + had to hand edit 100s of files for domain confs. For most mere mortals, doing an upgrade + having 100s or 1000s of domains go dark, creates much discomfort in pits of their stomachs. Many people, just rolled back OS version + Apache. In the future, might be best to think about this before hand... if mass adoption of new code is the end goal. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor da...@davidfavor.com wrote: Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries. What do you mean by the format? -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Eric Covener wrote: On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor da...@davidfavor.com wrote: Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries. What do you mean by the format? http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrading.html covers this... snippet... In this example, all requests are allowed. 2.2 configuration: Order allow,deny Allow from all 2.4 configuration: Require all granted This is what bricked everyone's Apache config. Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf suffix, which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks removed (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled. Neither of these were a big deal + still make domains go dark. When I updated several 1000s of my client domains went dark. Till I figured out these niggling reasons... it was a very bad day... - David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM, David Favor da...@davidfavor.com wrote: Eric Covener wrote: On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor da...@davidfavor.com wrote: Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries. What do you mean by the format? http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrading.html covers this... snippet... In this example, all requests are allowed. 2.2 configuration: Order allow,deny Allow from all 2.4 configuration: Require all granted This is what bricked everyone's Apache config. http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_access_compat.html Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf suffix, which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks removed (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled. Is that a Debian thing? Apache httpd didn't make any such change. Neither of these were a big deal + still make domains go dark. When I updated several 1000s of my client domains went dark. Till I figured out these niggling reasons... it was a very bad day... - David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/ http://edjective.org/
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Jeff Trawick wrote: On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM, David Favor da...@davidfavor.com mailto:da...@davidfavor.com wrote: Eric Covener wrote: On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor da...@davidfavor.com mailto:da...@davidfavor.com wrote: Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries. What do you mean by the format? http://httpd.apache.org/docs/__trunk/upgrading.html http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrading.html covers this... snippet... In this example, all requests are allowed. 2.2 configuration: Order allow,deny Allow from all 2.4 configuration: Require all granted This is what bricked everyone's Apache config. http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_access_compat.html Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf suffix, which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks removed (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled. Is that a Debian thing? Apache httpd didn't make any such change. This might have been a Debian-ism or Ubuntu-ism. I had no time to check, only time to fix. Dark domains == red-in-face clients... with hoes... pitchforks... torches... Shudder... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf suffix, which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks removed (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled. Is that a Debian thing? Apache httpd didn't make any such change. This is a Debian change. The Apache wiki should probably be updated too: https://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout#Debian.2C_Ubuntu_.28Apache_httpd_2.x.29 : From /usr/share/doc/apache2/README.Debian.gz (in Ubuntu 14.04): The Include directives ignore files with names that do not end with a .conf suffix. This behavior has changed from previous releases! - Y
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Should add that they even provided a script for renaming: /usr/share/doc/apache2/migrate-sites.pl - Y On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Yehuda Katz yeh...@ymkatz.net wrote: Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf suffix, which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks removed (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled. Is that a Debian thing? Apache httpd didn't make any such change. This is a Debian change. The Apache wiki should probably be updated too: https://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout#Debian.2C_Ubuntu_.28Apache_httpd_2.x.29 : From /usr/share/doc/apache2/README.Debian.gz (in Ubuntu 14.04): The Include directives ignore files with names that do not end with a .conf suffix. This behavior has changed from previous releases! - Y
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
There was one for 2.0-2.2, so having one for 2.2-2.4 makes sense, and should be easy. On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:41 AM, Yehuda Katz yeh...@ymkatz.net wrote: Should add that they even provided a script for renaming: /usr/share/doc/apache2/migrate-sites.pl - Y On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Yehuda Katz yeh...@ymkatz.net wrote: Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf suffix, which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks removed (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled. Is that a Debian thing? Apache httpd didn't make any such change. This is a Debian change. The Apache wiki should probably be updated too: https://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout#Debian.2C_Ubuntu_.28Apache_httpd_2.x.29: From /usr/share/doc/apache2/README.Debian.gz (in Ubuntu 14.04): The Include directives ignore files with names that do not end with a .conf suffix. This behavior has changed from previous releases! - Y - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Joey J j...@buymro.net wrote: Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low?? The Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for some time and looking at the improvements I see significant value in several. I don't see any reason why anybody wouldn't want to use it but the community seems to think it's bad. What am I missing?? Current market share: http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all -Joey J It takes a *long* time for commercial people to move to new major versions of things. People have already mentioned that server releases have very conservative sets of packages, but you also have to take in to account the cost-benefit of an upgrade. If you are on the latest apache 2.2 branch, you are already using a pretty great httpd, and so there aren't that many benefits from upgrading, whilst there is a lot of cost - configs need to be updated and verified. Businesses need to prioritise what is upgraded and what can remain the same. In our case, we have an ambition to move from 2.2 to 2.4 on our reverse proxies, as currently we run two instances of apache, one using event and serving regular http, and one using worker and serving SSL. Apache 2.4's event MPM allows serving SSL, and so we can remove this complexity, and so - eventually - this will be a good upgrade for us. However, the system we currently have works perfectly well. It is hard to justify this upgrade, even though it would give us some maintenance benefits and performance increases (albeit, unneeded for us). I've performed the update on a number of personal boxes, for the way I use apache the changes were minimal. Cheers Tom - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
On 10.04.2014 19:43, Joey J wrote: Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low?? The Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for some time and looking at the improvements I see significant value in several. I don't see any reason why anybody wouldn't want to use it but the community seems to think it's bad. What am I missing?? Current market share: http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all -Joey J - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org Primary reason for still keeping apache2.2 running at some services is mod_auth_cas is still not ported to work with 2.4 - In 2.4 this kind of authentication requires Server Variable 'REMOTE-USER' to be set for a successful attempt. There is still no Version of mod_auth_cas supporting the compilation for both 2.2 and 2.4. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Apache 2.4 is technically better and many commonly use components have been pulled into the Apache core, which had to be manually compiled before, but pulling in some modules and changing them for Apache 2.4 broke compatibility with said external modules, ie. importing mod_proxy_html but not mod_proxy_xml, but having a different API and default charset etc., also using an external mod_proxy_html/xml for compatibility is not possible due to conflicts with the internal one. But IMHO the problem is mainly that if you have a legacy web site / reverse proxy, or a site which requires particular versions of a custom Apache module (mod_perl comes to mind) you need to stick with 2.2.x, until the third party module SW is upgraded. This not a reflection on the Apache team, only that software dependencies are sometimes complex, and many modules are supported by free by third parties in their spare time (or not) and need to be patched significantly for significant changes in api. There can be up to 2 layers on to of Apache, all with their own API compatibility issues at each level, not to mention the dependencies of Apache itself. The content creation model is often to make a web site as a single pay for development item, and then host it as an ongoing item, the hosting not related to the individual developer. So the site needs to be deployed on a server version which has a compatible ABI as it was developed against, as the hosting organization likely has no relationship to the original developer. This prevents the application being upgraded without having a relationship to the original developer (and related SW stack). Companies who manage a whole stack of application(s), and also host them are pretty rare these days. Most apps get hosted on commercial web hosts. There is no impetus of the original developer to upgrade the site, as they are working elsewhere. I don't see how the Apache developers can make such significant improvements, without changing the API, so it is wise that they keep the previous stable version, especially when the software interface changes significantly. This is not an issue of the apache developers, simply that software changes over time, and keeping changes in sync across non-related projects (apr/apr-util/apache/mod_perl/perl/perl modules/Embperl as an example) is difficult. But BTW Embperl just yesterday released a beta for apache 2.4 - which i look forward to trying :) On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Joey J j...@buymro.net wrote: Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low?? The Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for some time and looking at the improvements I see significant value in several. I don't see any reason why anybody wouldn't want to use it but the community seems to think it's bad. What am I missing?? Current market share: http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all -Joey J - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org -- Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
JJ == Joey J j...@buymro.net writes: JJ Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only JJ used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low?? I suspect most sites use whichever version comes with their chosen distribution. 2.4 should gain more usage now that Ubuntu Trusty is released as their new LTS version. Similarly, when Debian releases Jessie there should be another bump. I see fedora has had it at least since fedora 19, maybe earlier. But it is not in centos or rhel. SuSE upgraded to 2.4 with SuSE 13.1, based on the versions in their repo. 13.1 is less than 6 months old. I see in their svn that FreeBSD has separate 22 and 24 ports starting with RELEASE_9_2_0. Based on their cvs, it looks like NetBSD has had an apach24 port for about two years now. Early adopters it seems. In short, as people update to newer versions of their chosen distributions adoption of apache 2.4 should accelerate. -JimC -- James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
I think it's good, but most of my clients already had their share of pain from Apache 2.0.x to 2.2.x. On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Joey J j...@buymro.net wrote: Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low?? The Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for some time and looking at the improvements I see significant value in several. I don't see any reason why anybody wouldn't want to use it but the community seems to think it's bad. What am I missing?? Current market share: http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all -Joey J - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org -- [ ]'s Filipe Cifali Stangler
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Among other things I'm sure many are using modules that just plain won't build/run for 2.4.x. For example, I know at a place I worked a few years ago they were using a module that an app server depended on which would not build for anything beyond Apache 2.2 (we tried, believe me). On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Filipe Cifali cifali.fil...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's good, but most of my clients already had their share of pain from Apache 2.0.x to 2.2.x. On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Joey J j...@buymro.net wrote: Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low?? The Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for some time and looking at the improvements I see significant value in several. I don't see any reason why anybody wouldn't want to use it but the community seems to think it's bad. What am I missing?? Current market share: http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all -Joey J - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org -- [ ]'s Filipe Cifali Stangler - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Well, most of the mods were just easily hackable, the major pain is to tell the users to update .htaccess and more stuff, my new servers push users to 2.4.x, but old users have priority to keep using as it always was. On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Nick Tkach ntk...@gmail.com wrote: Among other things I'm sure many are using modules that just plain won't build/run for 2.4.x. For example, I know at a place I worked a few years ago they were using a module that an app server depended on which would not build for anything beyond Apache 2.2 (we tried, believe me). On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Filipe Cifali cifali.fil...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's good, but most of my clients already had their share of pain from Apache 2.0.x to 2.2.x. On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Joey J j...@buymro.net wrote: Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low?? The Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for some time and looking at the improvements I see significant value in several. I don't see any reason why anybody wouldn't want to use it but the community seems to think it's bad. What am I missing?? Current market share: http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all -Joey J - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org -- [ ]'s Filipe Cifali Stangler - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org -- [ ]'s Filipe Cifali Stangler
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:43:17PM -0500, Joey J wrote: Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low?? The Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for some time and looking at the improvements I see significant value in several. I don't see any reason why anybody wouldn't want to use it but the community seems to think it's bad. I'm actually fighting my way through this upgrade now. It's not that I think 2.4 is bad. Not at all. It's just that the upgrade is difficult and I have other things I need to be working on. -- David Benfell benf...@parts-unknown.org See https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you don't understand the attachment. pgpbdNzQu8usm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
I just recently attempted upgrading an old cluster to 2.4 however due to massive use of old .htaccess rules with allow/denies it simply wasn't worth the effort to migrate everything to the new configurations. On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:40 AM, David Benfell benf...@parts-unknown.orgwrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:43:17PM -0500, Joey J wrote: Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low?? The Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for some time and looking at the improvements I see significant value in several. I don't see any reason why anybody wouldn't want to use it but the community seems to think it's bad. I'm actually fighting my way through this upgrade now. It's not that I think 2.4 is bad. Not at all. It's just that the upgrade is difficult and I have other things I need to be working on. -- David Benfell benf...@parts-unknown.org See https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you don't understand the attachment.
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Joey J j...@buymro.net wrote: Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low?? The Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for some time and looking at the improvements I see significant value in several. I don't see any reason why anybody wouldn't want to use it but the community seems to think it's bad. What am I missing?? Current market share: http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all It's just barely making its way into server distributions of operating systems due to the length of release cycles. Latest GA RHEL, SLES, and LTS ubuntu don't yet include it - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:55:47PM -0600, Eric Covener wrote: Latest GA RHEL, SLES, and LTS ubuntu don't yet include it Likely because they don't want to put their users through configuration hell. I think the apache folks are assuming that these upgrades are simple. But from what I can see, most people are using recipes for their configurations--that's certainly what I do--because the configuration is too complicated as it is. Upgrading means breakage. And even if you fight your way through the configuration upgrade, if you run into other problems, as I have, it seems like you're on your own. I may very well be forced to abandon this project because I simply don't know how to fix what's wrong. (See my other pending thread.) -- David Benfell benf...@parts-unknown.org See https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you don't understand the attachment. pgpBCls6xN3XF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Tyler Wilson k...@linuxdigital.net wrote: I just recently attempted upgrading an old cluster to 2.4 however due to massive use of old .htaccess rules with allow/denies it simply wasn't worth the effort to migrate everything to the new configurations. Tried http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_access_compat.html ? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:43:17PM -0500, Joey J wrote: Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low?? The Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for some time and looking at the improvements I see significant value in several. I don't see any reason why anybody wouldn't want to use it but the community seems to think it's bad. Perhaps it's not yet available, in the way that many in the community consume it. Gentoo Linux briefly stabilized 2.4.3 some time ago, but there were problems with the ebuild and it was withdrawn. No 2.4 release has been stabilized since. I was one of the lucky? ones who noticed the 2.4 ebuild before it was keyworded and merged it, and I'm still running it. (Actually I'm running 2.4.9, because I overrode the keyword and there *have* been unstable updates.) It works well. I had to figure out how to adapt to a few of the changes, but it wasn't bad. Every once in a while I ask whatever happened to stabilizing 2.4? I've had to do without a module or two, but nothing that couldn't be done almost as well in another way. So far keeping it (after I made it run) has been less work than falling back to 2.2 would be. That's on my development environment, though. We still run 2.2 in production, and will until Gentoo stabilizes another 2.4.x. -- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mw...@iupui.edu Machines should not be friendly. Machines should be obedient. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
On 10/04/14 19:43, Joey J wrote: Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low?? The Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for some time and looking at the improvements I see significant value in several. I don't see any reason why anybody wouldn't want to use it but the community seems to think it's bad. My datapoint. I was using 2.2.26 until a couple of weeks ago. I was perfectly fine with it. I upgraded to 2.4.9 because I wanted to check out the EVENT worker and many SSL improvements (OCSP stapling, Elliptic Curves). In the process I had to drop mod_python and make a painful, long and error-prone conversion of order deny/allow to Requires. It was really annoying and I am still not sure some of my protected data is now available out there because some mistake. I am ok with the upgrading, so far (beside the annoying you are going to be in the newspapers because you did some permissions upgrading wrong), except for this VERY ANNOYING BUG: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45023 https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56354 That is not reason enough to downgrade, but it is very annoying and costly, and I am a bit dissapointed of that bug being there for ages. And ages. I am graceful to Apache team, thought. My nature is being grumpy :-). Apache is a great product. Using it since 1.3 days. I didn't upgrade before because 2.2 was working great and 2.4 was not a big enough improvement. Low return for the risk of upgrading, dropping mod_python, etc. The order-requires was a showstop for me. Maybe an automatic migration tool would help other people. Hope my datapoint be useful to somebody. -- Jesús Cea Avión _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ j...@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ Twitter: @jcea_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ jabber / xmpp:j...@jabber.org _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ Things are not so easy _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ My name is Dump, Core Dump _/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro - Leibniz signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
