FYI.. (fwd)

[Rob Hartill <ha...@hyperreal.com>]

No ack sent on this.

I'm not going to suggest any more timetables for 1.0 'cos they
just get ignored or rejected.


Forwarded message:
> From jkh@FreeBSD.org  Thu Oct 26 02:05:22 1995
> Sender: jkh@time.cdrom.com
> Message-ID: <30...@FreeBSD.org>
> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 02:04:46 -0700
> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jk...@FreeBSD.org>
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b1 (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.1-STABLE i386)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: apache-bugs@mail.apache.org
> Subject: FYI..
> X-URL: http://www.apache.org/docs/FAQ.html
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> In the upcoming FreeBSD 2.1 release, there is a configuration option off
> of one of the installation menus for installing and configuring (with a
> small sample home page) WEB server.  Given that I had nothing newer than
> Apache 0.8.14 to work with, I've sort of stapled this knowledge into the
> installation code and will be maintaining a pre-packaged version of
> Apache for FreeBSD on various FTP sites.  Such in-built knowledge is
> naturally somewhat evil and I don't particularly like it, but it was the
> only way I could really make the process completely seamless.
> 
> My question therefore is:  Is the idea of "bundling" a BETA version of
> your server in this way going to bother you in any way?  I looked at the
> other alternatives but there really aren't any given that we're all
> pretty avid Apache fans here (we use it for www.freebsd.org) and we'd
> like to encourage people to use your server over any of the
> alternatives.  I'm going to put 2.1 "in the can" in about 8-10 days
> here, so unless your 1.0 version is literally imminent, I'm not sure
> that I'll be able to sync with it.  For 2.1.1, certainly, but 2.1 is
> going to be tight!  Any comments?
> 
> Thanks!
> -- 
> 						Jordan
>