Danek Duvall wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 07:56:11PM +0000, Amanda waite wrote: > > We felt that it's very likely that users will want to run more than one > > version of Lighttpd on the same system and so provisioned for it. > > Why did you think that would be common? Like I said, it doesn't appear > that this is common on a handful of common Linux distributions; what would > make the situation different on Solaris?
Let's see how different is it... In debian today I see for example: - php4 packages and php5 packages - apache and apache2 packages They do it presumably for the same reasons several of the OpenSolaris project teams have felt the need, which is to provide stability within a given major release family while at the same time making the newer-generation apps available. > Yup. I don't agree with the way Apache has been versioned, either, though > I understand why we delivered both 1.3 and 2.x for a while. Why we haven't > yet gotten rid of 1.3, or why we now ship two versions of 2.x is completely > beyond me. I think it's nuts. There's only one apache22. apache1 is best thought of as a different product just sharing the same first name, still with its user base. Anyway, this is not the apache case. Some of the OpenSolaris components have finer-grained versioning than in Linux, because the Solaris lifecycle and stability expectations are different. Uncommitted still means stable until the next minor release, which is a very long time. Short of declaring everything Volatile, some versioning is unavoidable. -- Jyri J. Virkki - jyri.virkki at sun.com - Sun Microsystems
