You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@httpd.apache.org by David Favor <da...@davidfavor.com> on 2014/07/18 16:21:31 UTC
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Joey J wrote:
> Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only
> used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low?? The
> Apache foundation has been recommending upgrading to 2.4 for some time
> and looking at the improvements I see significant value in several. I
> don't see any reason why anybody wouldn't want to use it but the
> community seems to think it's bad.
>
> What am I missing??
>
> Current market share:
> http://w3techs.com/technologies/details/ws-apache/2.4/all
>
> -Joey J
Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.
For example, when Ubuntu upgraded to Apache-2.4.x the normal
upgrade process bricked every single domain being served.
I was able to find the fix + had to hand edit 100s of files
for domain confs.
For most mere mortals, doing an upgrade + having 100s or 1000s
of domains go dark, creates much discomfort in pits of their stomachs.
Many people, just rolled back OS version + Apache.
In the future, might be best to think about this before hand...
if mass adoption of new code is the end goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
[users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 18 Jul 2014, at 11:31 , Good Guy <xf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old one should still work.
I'm pretty happy not being stuck with apache 0.7¹ syntax, myself.
¹ I think that was the initial pre-release "a patchy server" version back in 1995.
--
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Edgar Pettijohn <ed...@pettijohn.no-ip.biz>
wrote:
> "Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old
> one should still work"
>
> I agree 100%
>
By and large, the developers who bring you Apache httpd for free are
willing to maintain compatibility with a certain syntax and module API for
"only" 8-10 years at a time.
Some new features or architectural improvements require some degree of a
fresh slate, and are reserved for the next major version where such changes
have to be taken.
>
>
> On 07/18/2014 12:31 PM, Good Guy wrote:
> > On 18/07/2014 15:35, Eric Covener wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor <da...@davidfavor.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.
> > >
> > > What do you mean by the format?
> > >
> >
> > I think what he is talking about is that for each upgrades, apache
> > becomes non-compliance with the previous version. So if you plan to
> > use the same conf file to speed up the implementation then you are
> > likely to be stuck because some entries in the conf file won't work
> > and throw out errors.
> >
> > Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old
> > one should still work.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
>
>
--
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/
http://edjective.org/
Re: [users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by Edgar Pettijohn <ed...@pettijohn.no-ip.biz>.
"Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old
one should still work"
I agree 100%
On 07/18/2014 12:31 PM, Good Guy wrote:
> On 18/07/2014 15:35, Eric Covener wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor <da...@davidfavor.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.
> >
> > What do you mean by the format?
> >
>
> I think what he is talking about is that for each upgrades, apache
> becomes non-compliance with the previous version. So if you plan to
> use the same conf file to speed up the implementation then you are
> likely to be stuck because some entries in the conf file won't work
> and throw out errors.
>
> Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old
> one should still work.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by Daniel Gruno <ru...@cord.dk>.
On 07/18/2014 07:31 PM, Good Guy wrote:
> On 18/07/2014 15:35, Eric Covener wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor <da...@davidfavor.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.
>>
>> What do you mean by the format?
>>
>
> I think what he is talking about is that for each upgrades, apache
> becomes non-compliance with the previous version. So if you plan to use
> the same conf file to speed up the implementation then you are likely to
> be stuck because some entries in the conf file won't work and throw out
> errors.
>
> Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old
> one should still work.
>
>
What on earth are you all on about?
Order x,y still works
Allow from ... still works
Deny from ... still works
There is no earth shattering change in the configuration, merely a new
and better way of setting access and an old way - both are supported.
The old way has now moved to mod_access_compat because it's not the
preferred way of handling access, but it is nonetheless still supported.
The .conf issue is purely Debian's making (and is described in their
changes doc, if people would bother reading it), take it up with the
Debian folks.
With regards,
Daniel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
[users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by Good Guy <xf...@hotmail.com>.
On 18/07/2014 15:35, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor <da...@davidfavor.com>
> wrote:
>> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.
>
> What do you mean by the format?
>
I think what he is talking about is that for each upgrades, apache
becomes non-compliance with the previous version. So if you plan to use
the same conf file to speed up the implementation then you are likely to
be stuck because some entries in the conf file won't work and throw out
errors.
Upgrades should be about new features and new codes/syntax but the old
one should still work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by David Favor <da...@davidfavor.com>.
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM, David Favor <david@davidfavor.com
> <ma...@davidfavor.com>> wrote:
>
> Eric Covener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor
> <david@davidfavor.com <ma...@davidfavor.com>> wrote:
>
> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.
>
>
> What do you mean by the format?
>
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/__trunk/upgrading.html
> <http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrading.html> covers this...
> snippet...
>
> In this example, all requests are allowed.
>
> 2.2 configuration:
>
> Order allow,deny
> Allow from all
>
> 2.4 configuration:
>
> Require all granted
>
> This is what bricked everyone's Apache config.
>
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_access_compat.html
>
>
>
> Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf
> suffix,
> which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old
> symlinks removed
> (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled.
>
>
> Is that a Debian thing? Apache httpd didn't make any such change.
This might have been a Debian-ism or Ubuntu-ism.
I had no time to check, only time to fix.
Dark domains == red-in-face clients... with hoes... pitchforks... torches...
Shudder...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
There was one for 2.0->2.2, so having one for 2.2->2.4 makes
sense, and should be easy.
On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:41 AM, Yehuda Katz <ye...@ymkatz.net> wrote:
> Should add that they even provided a script for renaming:
> /usr/share/doc/apache2/migrate-sites.pl
>
>
>
> - Y
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Yehuda Katz <ye...@ymkatz.net> wrote:
> Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf suffix,
> which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks removed
> (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled.
>
> Is that a Debian thing? Apache httpd didn't make any such change.
>
> This is a Debian change.
> The Apache wiki should probably be updated too: https://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout#Debian.2C_Ubuntu_.28Apache_httpd_2.x.29:
>
> From /usr/share/doc/apache2/README.Debian.gz (in Ubuntu 14.04):
>
> The Include directives ignore files with names that do not end with a
> .conf suffix. This behavior has changed from previous releases!
>
> - Y
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by Yehuda Katz <ye...@ymkatz.net>.
Should add that they even provided a script for renaming:
/usr/share/doc/apache2/migrate-sites.pl
- Y
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Yehuda Katz <ye...@ymkatz.net> wrote:
> Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf
>>> suffix,
>>> which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks
>>> removed
>>> (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled.
>>>
>>
>> Is that a Debian thing? Apache httpd didn't make any such change.
>>
>
> This is a Debian change.
> The Apache wiki should probably be updated too:
> https://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout#Debian.2C_Ubuntu_.28Apache_httpd_2.x.29
> :
>
> From /usr/share/doc/apache2/README.Debian.gz (in Ubuntu 14.04):
>
> The Include directives ignore files with names that do not end with a
>> .conf suffix. This behavior has changed from previous releases!
>
>
> - Y
>
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by Yehuda Katz <ye...@ymkatz.net>.
>
> Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf
>> suffix,
>> which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks
>> removed
>> (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled.
>>
>
> Is that a Debian thing? Apache httpd didn't make any such change.
>
This is a Debian change.
The Apache wiki should probably be updated too:
https://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout#Debian.2C_Ubuntu_.28Apache_httpd_2.x.29
:
>From /usr/share/doc/apache2/README.Debian.gz (in Ubuntu 14.04):
The Include directives ignore files with names that do not end with a
> .conf suffix. This behavior has changed from previous releases!
- Y
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:11 AM, David Favor <da...@davidfavor.com> wrote:
> Eric Covener wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor <da...@davidfavor.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.
>>>
>>
>> What do you mean by the format?
>>
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrading.html covers this...
> snippet...
>
> In this example, all requests are allowed.
>
> 2.2 configuration:
>
> Order allow,deny
> Allow from all
>
> 2.4 configuration:
>
> Require all granted
>
> This is what bricked everyone's Apache config.
>
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_access_compat.html
>
> Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf
> suffix,
> which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks
> removed
> (from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled.
>
Is that a Debian thing? Apache httpd didn't make any such change.
>
> Neither of these were a big deal + still make domains go dark.
>
> When I updated several 1000s of my client domains went dark. Till I figured
> out these niggling reasons... it was a very bad day...
>
> - David
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
>
>
--
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/
http://edjective.org/
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by David Favor <da...@davidfavor.com>.
Eric Covener wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor <da...@davidfavor.com> wrote:
>> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.
>
> What do you mean by the format?
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/upgrading.html covers this... snippet...
In this example, all requests are allowed.
2.2 configuration:
Order allow,deny
Allow from all
2.4 configuration:
Require all granted
This is what bricked everyone's Apache config.
Also, as I recall, conf files also changed to require having a .conf suffix,
which also meant every conf file had to be renamed + all old symlinks removed
(from sites-enabled) + all domains re-enabled.
Neither of these were a big deal + still make domains go dark.
When I updated several 1000s of my client domains went dark. Till I figured
out these niggling reasons... it was a very bad day...
- David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Favor <da...@davidfavor.com> wrote:
> Biggest problem is with Apache changing format of conf entries.
What do you mean by the format?
--
Eric Covener
covener@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org