> > - Closure on file layout versioning. The 2007/169 > case had > > /usr/apache2 (and corresponding places in /etc and > /var). There's > > been much discussion on whether to stay the course > or permit minor > > releases of 2.x to coexist (and there are several > way to accomplish > > that, but the higher order question is whether > coexistence is the goal). > > The main argument for this appears to be for > upgrades, so that upgrading > > from S10 doesn't break a working installation. > > I think the more interesting question is > whether or not during the course of successive > Indiana releases there is a need to have more than one > Apache 2.x release in play at a time.
As customers take the stack into production use and as the Indiana makes it easy to get the latest updates (potentially, with newer versions), wouldn't having multiple versions provide customers a choice to stick with the stable versions rather than being forced to upgrade what they have in production? > > I'm fairly ignorant on the history of compatibility > across different minor releases of Apache modulo what is documented in > PSARC 2007/169 but I would suggest not introducing the additional > hierarchy at this time. That said, I would love to hear what other > vendors have done in this space and how realistic expectation is that > users would tend to standardize on one particular 2.x version or one > particular 1.x version. > My understanding is that there is typically just one version but I'll request others to chime in here as well. This message posted from opensolaris.org
