Bill Nottingham wrote:
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) (forum@xxxxxxxxx) said:
As was mentioned in there discussion I want package it and push to
Fedora (it is open source and maintained). So, main question - is it
normal situation have second package (I intend call it like apache-itk)
with one source, which used in other rpm (apache) in repository? Is
really there any legal issues or etc.?
I don't think shipping separate rebuilds of core system daemons that
consist of adding 66k of non-upstream patch is a good idea.
Is there other form shipping this mpm axcept of separate rebuild in this
case??
I'm completely do not understand - why we do not want provide free
choose for free users? Why Ubuntu has ITK (and Debian I think too)?
Moreover, this is the most useful mpm for apache to multi-user
environment! Perchild is very unstable, suPHP and other cgi-based
solutions is not alternatives... I'm use it on my servers and do not
find any critical bug or problems very long time of exploitation.
Futermore current httpd.spec contains 14 patches, without ANY mention of
BZ# or link, or description [1]! Is it "good idea"?
And main question - Why I can't do it for thus users who want use it in
Fedora? Is there any guidelines about it?
[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
