> - 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.
Given the nature of changes between Nevada versus S10 and the direction that Indiana has taken, I think an upgrade from the earlier 2.x release in S10 can be handled as documented in PSARC 2007/169 via the standard EOL and EOF processes. 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. 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. dsc
