On 04/12/13 07:59, Karol Babioch wrote: > Hi, > > Am 03.12.2013 16:37, schrieb David C. Rankin: >> The 2.2->2.4 update represents a "major" update to crucial parts of apache >> including: > > This is exactly the reason why the new version should be provided by > Arch itself and not some "third-party" AUR packages. > >> For something as fundamental to server operations as apache, Arch should >> continue to provide 2.2 as the core package while providing 2.4 in testing for >> an extended period. A clear timeline for the move of 2.4 from testing to core >> should be developed by reasoned discussion with input from the user base. Once >> 2.4 moves to core, 2.2 should be maintained in core as (eg. apache22) for so >> long as support is provided by apache.org. > > Having used Arch for a couple of years now, this usually is something > that gets resolved by an appropriate RFC over on the arch-dev mailing > list. I have no problem with there actually being two version of Apache > in the repositories for a while, so people get some time to get their > installations migrated. Looking at this from the "outside" there seems > to be no effort to get this thing started at all. I don't see any > technical reasons for this, but at least to me it seems that basically > nobody cares ... > Exactly. AFAIK, we have no-one interested in maintaining apache-2.4. I'm sure we could have apache22 and apache (2.4) otherwise. A
