Date: Thu, 24 Jul 97 09:25:03 -0500 From: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <lists@tar.com> To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Apache and Ports Policies in General Message-ID: <199707241425.JAA01523@ns.tar.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I'm wondering if there is a "ports-stable" collection somewhere? Possibly I've missed it somehow? ----- I notice that ports-current has just upgraded to Apache 1.3a1. Here's what the Apache home page has to say about this release: "Apache 1.3a1 is a public alpha of the forthcoming Apache 1.3, an update which includes several new enhancements, including the ability to run under Microsoft Windows NT and 95. This is an alpha release, and is for experimental purposes; use at your own risk. It is available in source format only, so a compiler is neccessary to use it (Microsoft Visual C++ 5.0 for Windows). " "If you are not familiar with software development, and wish to use a stable, working, web server, we strongly reccomend you download Apache 1.2.1 instead. Please report any bugs you find. " ------ The ports-2.2.2 version, which as far as I can tell is the closest thing to ports-stable, has Apache 1.2b10. This is a beta release, and not even the most recent beta release prior to the official 1.2.0 release. The current stable release of Apache is 1.2.1, which I can't find anywhere in the ports collection (nor can I find 1.2.0). Here's what the Apache home page has to say about the 1.2 branch: "Apache 1.2.1 is now available. This is a maintenance release, with numerous bug fixes from 1.2.0. The 1.2 series has been well tested and is a stable platform. If you are running any beta of 1.2, or any older version of the Apache HTTP server, you should upgrade to this release for both stability and security reasons." ------ Unless I've missed something, it seems to me we're giving users the choice of the obsolete 1.2b10, from which Apache developers recommend an upgrade for "stability and security reasons", and the alpha Apache 1.3a1. But, no choice for the stable and recommended 1.2.1, or its predecessor 1.2.0. I would think this is a mistake?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707241425.JAA01523>