You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@httpd.apache.org by Joey J <Jo...@buymro.net> on 2014/04/10 19:43:17 UTC
[users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Filipe Cifali <ci...@gmail.com>.
Well, most of the mods were just easily hackable, the major pain is to tell
the users to update .htaccess and more stuff, my new servers push users to
2.4.x, but old users have priority to "keep using as it always was".
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Nick Tkach <nt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Among other things I'm sure many are using modules that just plain
> won't build/run for 2.4.x. For example, I know at a place I worked a
> few years ago they were using a module that an app server depended on
> which would not build for anything beyond Apache 2.2 (we tried,
> believe me).
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Filipe Cifali <ci...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I think it's good, but most of my clients already had their share of pain
> > from Apache 2.0.x to 2.2.x.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Joey J <Jo...@buymro.net> 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
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > [ ]'s
> >
> > Filipe Cifali Stangler
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
>
>
--
[ ]'s
Filipe Cifali Stangler
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by Nick Tkach <nt...@gmail.com>.
Among other things I'm sure many are using modules that just plain
won't build/run for 2.4.x. For example, I know at a place I worked a
few years ago they were using a module that an app server depended on
which would not build for anything beyond Apache 2.2 (we tried,
believe me).
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Filipe Cifali <ci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's good, but most of my clients already had their share of pain
> from Apache 2.0.x to 2.2.x.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Joey J <Jo...@buymro.net> 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
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> [ ]'s
>
> Filipe Cifali Stangler
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Filipe Cifali <ci...@gmail.com>.
I think it's good, but most of my clients already had their share of pain
from Apache 2.0.x to 2.2.x.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Joey J <Jo...@buymro.net> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
>
>
--
[ ]'s
Filipe Cifali Stangler
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by "Mark H. Wood" <mw...@IUPUI.Edu>.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:43:17PM -0500, 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.
Perhaps it's not yet available, in the way that many in the community
consume it.
Gentoo Linux briefly stabilized 2.4.3 some time ago, but there were
problems with the ebuild and it was withdrawn. No 2.4 release has
been stabilized since.
I was one of the lucky? ones who noticed the 2.4 ebuild before it was
keyworded and merged it, and I'm still running it. (Actually I'm
running 2.4.9, because I overrode the keyword and there *have* been
unstable updates.) It works well. I had to figure out how to adapt
to a few of the changes, but it wasn't bad. Every once in a while I
ask "whatever happened to stabilizing 2.4?" I've had to do without a
module or two, but nothing that couldn't be done almost as well in
another way. So far keeping it (after I made it run) has been less
work than falling back to 2.2 would be.
That's on my development environment, though. We still run 2.2 in
production, and will until Gentoo stabilizes another 2.4.x.
--
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood@IUPUI.Edu
Machines should not be friendly. Machines should be obedient.
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by Tom Evans <te...@googlemail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Joey J <Jo...@buymro.net> 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
It takes a *long* time for commercial people to move to new major
versions of things. People have already mentioned that server releases
have very conservative sets of packages, but you also have to take in
to account the cost-benefit of an upgrade.
If you are on the latest apache 2.2 branch, you are already using a
pretty great httpd, and so there aren't that many benefits from
upgrading, whilst there is a lot of cost - configs need to be updated
and verified. Businesses need to prioritise what is upgraded and what
can remain the same.
In our case, we have an ambition to move from 2.2 to 2.4 on our
reverse proxies, as currently we run two instances of apache, one
using event and serving regular http, and one using worker and serving
SSL. Apache 2.4's event MPM allows serving SSL, and so we can remove
this complexity, and so - eventually - this will be a good upgrade for
us.
However, the system we currently have works perfectly well. It is hard
to justify this upgrade, even though it would give us some maintenance
benefits and performance increases (albeit, unneeded for us).
I've performed the update on a number of personal boxes, for the way I
use apache the changes were minimal.
Cheers
Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 James Cloos <cl...@jhcloos.com>.
>>>>> "JJ" == Joey J <Jo...@buymro.net> writes:
JJ> Apache 2.4 has had a stable release out for over 2 years but is only
JJ> used by 2.5% of active Apache sites. Why is the adoption so low??
I suspect most sites use whichever version comes with their chosen
distribution.
2.4 should gain more usage now that Ubuntu Trusty is released as their
new LTS version. Similarly, when Debian releases Jessie there should be
another bump.
I see fedora has had it at least since fedora 19, maybe earlier. But it
is not in centos or rhel.
SuSE upgraded to 2.4 with SuSE 13.1, based on the versions in their repo.
13.1 is less than 6 months old.
I see in their svn that FreeBSD has separate 22 and 24 ports starting
with RELEASE_9_2_0.
Based on their cvs, it looks like NetBSD has had an apach24 port for
about two years now. Early adopters it seems.
In short, as people update to newer versions of their chosen distributions
adoption of apache 2.4 should accelerate.
-JimC
--
James Cloos <cl...@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Oscar Knorn <os...@uni-duisburg-essen.de>.
On 10.04.2014 19:43, 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
>
Primary reason for still keeping apache2.2 running at some services is
mod_auth_cas is still not ported to work with 2.4 - In 2.4 this kind of
authentication requires Server Variable 'REMOTE-USER' to be set for a
successful attempt. There is still no Version of mod_auth_cas supporting
the compilation for both 2.2 and 2.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Jesus Cea <jc...@jcea.es>.
On 10/04/14 19:43, 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.
My datapoint.
I was using 2.2.26 until a couple of weeks ago. I was perfectly fine
with it.
I upgraded to 2.4.9 because I wanted to check out the EVENT worker and
many SSL improvements (OCSP stapling, Elliptic Curves). In the process I
had to drop "mod_python" and make a painful, long and error-prone
conversion of "order deny/allow" to "Requires". It was really annoying
and I am still not sure some of my protected data is now available out
there because some mistake.
I am ok with the upgrading, so far (beside the annoying "you are going
to be in the newspapers because you did some permissions upgrading
wrong"), except for this VERY ANNOYING BUG:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45023
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56354
That is not reason enough to downgrade, but it is very annoying and
costly, and I am a bit dissapointed of that bug being there for ages.
And ages.
I am graceful to Apache team, thought. My nature is being grumpy :-).
Apache is a great product. Using it since 1.3 days.
I didn't upgrade before because 2.2 was working great and 2.4 was not a
big enough improvement. Low return for the risk of upgrading, dropping
mod_python, etc. The order->requires was a showstop for me. Maybe an
automatic migration tool would help other people.
Hope my datapoint be useful to somebody.
--
Jesús Cea Avión _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/
jcea@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/
Twitter: @jcea _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/
jabber / xmpp:jcea@jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/
"Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/
"My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/
"El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz
[users@httpd] Re: Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by Good Guy <xf...@hotmail.com>.
On 10/04/2014 18:43, 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
The upgrade process isn't simple for most Open Source products and so
uptake of upgrades is very slow despite being FREE.
With Microsoft products, the uptake is high because the upgrade process
is very simple and people are prepared to try it and decide to stay with it.
With Open Source, something must be done with backwards compatibility
for products to be readily acceptable in the market place. I try all
new upgrades for Apache, PHP, MySQL etc but I am using them as a hobby
and for learning purpose so that when contracts demand latest knowledge
then I am ready for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by David Favor <da...@davidfavor.com>.
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
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by David Benfell <be...@parts-unknown.org>.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:55:47PM -0600, Eric Covener wrote:
>
> Latest GA RHEL, SLES, and LTS ubuntu don't yet include it
>
Likely because they don't want to put their users through
configuration hell.
I think the apache folks are assuming that these upgrades are simple.
But from what I can see, most people are using recipes for their
configurations--that's certainly what I do--because the configuration
is too complicated as it is. Upgrading means breakage.
And even if you fight your way through the configuration upgrade, if
you run into other problems, as I have, it seems like you're on your
own.
I may very well be forced to abandon this project because I simply
don't know how to fix what's wrong. (See my other pending thread.)
--
David Benfell <be...@parts-unknown.org>
See https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you don't understand the
attachment.
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Joey J <Jo...@buymro.net> 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
It's just barely making its way into server distributions of operating
systems due to the length of release cycles.
Latest GA RHEL, SLES, and LTS ubuntu don't yet include it
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Tyler Wilson <ku...@linuxdigital.net> wrote:
> I just recently attempted upgrading an old cluster to 2.4 however due to
> massive use of old .htaccess rules with allow/denies it simply wasn't worth
> the effort to migrate everything to the new configurations.
Tried http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_access_compat.html ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Tyler Wilson <ku...@linuxdigital.net>.
I just recently attempted upgrading an old cluster to 2.4 however due to
massive use of old .htaccess rules with allow/denies it simply wasn't worth
the effort to migrate everything to the new configurations.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:40 AM, David Benfell
<be...@parts-unknown.org>wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:43:17PM -0500, 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.
> >
> I'm actually fighting my way through this upgrade now. It's not that I
> think 2.4 is bad. Not at all. It's just that the upgrade is difficult
> and I have other things I need to be working on.
>
> --
> David Benfell <be...@parts-unknown.org>
> See https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you don't understand the
> attachment.
>
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by David Benfell <be...@parts-unknown.org>.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:43:17PM -0500, 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.
>
I'm actually fighting my way through this upgrade now. It's not that I
think 2.4 is bad. Not at all. It's just that the upgrade is difficult
and I have other things I need to be working on.
--
David Benfell <be...@parts-unknown.org>
See https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you don't understand the
attachment.
Re: [users@httpd] Apache 2.4 - non adoption reasons??
Posted by "Brett @Google" <br...@gmail.com>.
Apache 2.4 is technically better and many commonly use components have been
pulled into the Apache core, which had to be manually compiled before, but
pulling in some modules and changing them for Apache 2.4 broke
compatibility with said external modules, ie. importing mod_proxy_html but
not mod_proxy_xml, but having a different API and default charset etc.,
also using an external mod_proxy_html/xml for compatibility is not possible
due to conflicts with the internal one.
But IMHO the problem is mainly that if you have a legacy web site / reverse
proxy, or a site which requires particular versions of a custom Apache
module (mod_perl comes to mind) you need to stick with 2.2.x, until the
third party module SW is upgraded. This not a reflection on the Apache
team, only that software dependencies are sometimes complex, and many
modules are supported by free by third parties in their spare time (or not)
and need to be patched significantly for significant changes in api. There
can be up to 2 layers on to of Apache, all with their own API compatibility
issues at each level, not to mention the dependencies of Apache itself.
The content creation model is often to make a web site as a single pay for
development item, and then host it as an ongoing item, the hosting not
related to the individual developer. So the site needs to be deployed on a
server version which has a compatible ABI as it was developed against, as
the hosting organization likely has no relationship to the original
developer. This prevents the application being upgraded without having a
relationship to the original developer (and related SW stack).
Companies who manage a whole stack of application(s), and also host them
are pretty rare these days. Most apps get hosted on commercial web hosts.
There is no impetus of the original developer to upgrade the site, as they
are working elsewhere.
I don't see how the Apache developers can make such significant
improvements, without changing the API, so it is wise that they keep the
previous stable version, especially when the software interface changes
significantly. This is not an issue of the apache developers, simply that
software changes over time, and keeping changes in sync across non-related
projects (apr/apr-util/apache/mod_perl/perl/perl modules/Embperl as an
example) is difficult. But BTW Embperl just yesterday released a beta for
apache 2.4 - which i look forward to trying :)
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Joey J <Jo...@buymro.net> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
>
>
--
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause
and reflect.
- Mark Twain