Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote:
As I mention above, what about your first link - main apache rpm
package fully ignore this guidelines!
>
These are more best practises and aren't part oaf the packaging
guidelines except as a reference but maintainers have to ultimately make
their own decisions. If you find major deviations from upstream, it is
useful to talk to the maintainers and understand why.
Off course, you talk about "maintainers have to ultimately make their
own decisions." but forbidden this right for the Fedora users who want
use mpm-itk for example??
But why you are not consider Steinar H. Gunderson as upstream
amintainer of apache mpm-itk???
This is a patchset for upstream.
In other words, if I (or any other) make "Apache fork", copy it source,
patch with this patch and pack in separate source tarball on separate
URL (on Sourceforge or any else) you are accept such package into Fedora???
In any case, as maintainer of package I take care about maintenance
load by this rpm. As I remember, it had not any urgent issues with
adaptation to current releases of apache for the past year or even more.
P.S. I'm write mail to Steinar H. Gunderson with question why it is
not in upstream...
Yes, that is the key question to get an answer for.
Whereas you missing note about low maintenance load I agree - it is main
question.
So, I get answer - apache upstream don't want it, mainly out of
worries around the server running as root until it has processed the
request header.
http://marc.info/?l=apache-httpd-dev&m=118274310508712&w=2
Eventually even in this discussion none of equal by efficient solution
was be suggested (Solutions by proxy requests on other instances of
apache initially was be admitted by author as very slow)!
And one more. I asked Steinar H. Gunderson and He assure me what he
planed maintain this patch in the future (again actual question about fork).
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
