On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 11:32:13 -0800 Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > This situation with apache-2.4 reminds me recent saga with libxml2 > update. libxml2 was marked out-of-date for 9 months and maintainer > ignored requests about upgrading the package. The only explanation was > "if maintainer does not upgrade the package there must be a good > reason for it - new version probably breaks other apps". But it end up > that the new libxml2 package did not break anyone and upgrade was very > simple - it was just a version bump and no dependencies rebuild was > needed. I made a conclusion that maintainer just lost interest in > supporting libxml2. What exactly are you complaining about? Apache 2.2 is still supported upstream (2.2.26 was released on 11/16/2013 -- two weeks ago). Apache 2.4 is just another branch. So why is apache-2.2 old? > > Could it be the same situation with apache-2.2 package? If the > maintainer lost interest would it be better to drop Apache to > 'community' repo where it has higher chance to be upgraded? IMHO it is > shame for Arch to keep old versions of software without clear > explanation, 2.4.1 was released almost 2 years ago! Apache 2.2.15 was pushed in 07/2013. This situation hardly qualifies as "lost interest". If you desperately need 2.4.7 and are absolutely sure that it is compatible with 2.2 why not just compile it yourself? Cheers, -- Leonid Isaev GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
