Re: Why Redhat 8.0 / 9.0 still use 2.0.40 (+ security fixes)

2003-06-27 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr. 
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





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Why Redhat 8.0 / 9.0 still use 2.0.40 (+ security fixes)

2003-06-27 Thread Henri Gomez 
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



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Why Redhat 8.0 / 9.0 still use 2.0.40 (+ security fixes)

2003-06-27 Thread Mark J Cox 
 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



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]