You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Henri Gomez <hg...@apache.org> on 2003/06/27 12:09:11 UTC
Why Redhat 8.0 / 9.0 still use 2.0.40 (+ security fixes)
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: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Why Redhat 8.0 / 9.0 still use 2.0.40 (+ security fixes)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
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: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Why Redhat 8.0 / 9.0 still use 2.0.40 (+ security fixes)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
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
Re: Why Redhat 8.0 / 9.0 still use 2.0.40 (+ security fixes)
Posted by Henri Gomez <hg...@apache.org>.
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 ;)
>
Hi Mark,
I understand your concern, and also the quantity of works to release
all the related modules (php, mod_perl...), but there is many users
who need latest Apache 2.0 since they have to use extended
functionnalities (ie mod_deflate logs) or because some modules
need them.
The problem we encountered in mod_jk was that in 2.0.40 there is
no support for apxs -q LIBTOOL and so users couldn't built mod_jk 1.2.4
under Redhat 8.0 or 9.0 (I sent a TRICK to tomcat-dev and tomcat-user
lists to overcome this limitation).
I get a least one mail by day from happy users for my 'alternate apache
rpm' provided at falsehope.com (apache 2.0.46 with mpm).
http://rpmfind.net//linux/RPM/falsehope/home/gomez/apache2/apache2-2.0.46-1.7.2.i386.html
Regards
Re: Why Redhat 8.0 / 9.0 still use 2.0.40 (+ security fixes)
Posted by Mark J Cox <ma...@awe.com>.
> 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
Re: Why Redhat 8.0 / 9.0 still use 2.0.40 (+ security fixes)
Posted by Mark J Cox <ma...@awe.com>.
> 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: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org