IPv6 in apache-1.3?

[Martin Kraemer <Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com>]

Some time ago, we decided on trying to integrate the KAME patch into
1.3.x -- should we do that after 1.3.19? What do you think?
(A colleague of mine keeps patching apache releases over and over again,
integrating the KAME patch; it would save him a lot of work too)

  Martin
-- 
<Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com>    |       Fujitsu Siemens
       <ma...@apache.org>              |   81730  Munich,  Germany

Re: IPv6 in apache-1.3?

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@bellsouth.net>]

Martin Kraemer <Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com> writes:

> Some time ago, we decided on trying to integrate the KAME patch into
> 1.3.x -- should we do that after 1.3.19? What do you think?
> (A colleague of mine keeps patching apache releases over and over again,
> integrating the KAME patch; it would save him a lot of work too)

I'd rather not see that much stuff go into 1.3.X.  I've even looked at
the KAME patch, some of it in a lot of detail, but I haven't reviewed
it enough to feel comfortable with it being included in a stable
release of Apache.

The IPv6 users are by definition early adopters.  Let them use 2.0.

-- 
Jeff Trawick | trawickj@bellsouth.net | PGP public key at web site:
       http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
             Born in Roswell... married an alien...

Re: IPv6 in apache-1.3?

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

From: "Martin Kraemer" <Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 9:42 AM


> Some time ago, we decided on trying to integrate the KAME patch into
> 1.3.x -- should we do that after 1.3.19? What do you think?
> (A colleague of mine keeps patching apache releases over and over again,
> integrating the KAME patch; it would save him a lot of work too)

If you want to be the maintainer, I suppose that could work.  But I'd just
ask us to wait 2 weeks to see what fallout occurs from early adopters of
1.3.19 - I just noticed bug 7331 which portends of a leak somewhere around SSI.

As soon as we have a stable tree, and no we have introduced no new problems,
I'd be happy to test the patch on Win32 to assure it's a no-op.  We would
need to emblazon the server that we only support that specific IPv6 mechanism,
no support for Win32, Netware, etc, and ask those folks to wait for 2.0
where all the new protocol stuff is going on inside of APR.

Bill

Re: IPv6 in apache-1.3?

[Lars Eilebrecht <la...@hyperreal.org>]

According to Greg Stein:

>  I'm -0 tending towards -1 for adding that amount of stuff to the 1.3 tree.
>  Let people apply KAME if they need it, or have then use Apache 2.0.

I tend to agree.


ciao...
-- 
Lars Eilebrecht                    - ...just a roadkill on the
lars@hyperreal.org                 - information superhighway.

Re: IPv6 in apache-1.3?

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 04:42:35PM +0100, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> Some time ago, we decided on trying to integrate the KAME patch into
> 1.3.x -- should we do that after 1.3.19? What do you think?
> (A colleague of mine keeps patching apache releases over and over again,
> integrating the KAME patch; it would save him a lot of work too)

I'm -0 tending towards -1 for adding that amount of stuff to the 1.3 tree.
Let people apply KAME if they need it, or have then use Apache 2.0.

But to bulk up 1.3 with the patches, then deal with the fallout... urk.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/