Hi On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 libxml2 was marked out-of-date for 9 months and maintainer 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? What I am trying to say is that keeping software up-to-date is one of the main maintainer's responsibilities. Especially in Arch Linux that "strives to stay bleeding edge, and typically offers the latest stable versions of most software" (quote from https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Linux). > 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. No, it is not "just another branch". 2.4 is the latest stable version recommended by upstream. 2.2 has status of legacy release. > >> >> 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
