From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jul 24 08:27:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA04612 for questions-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from houseofduck.dyn.ml.org (ts003d24.sal-ut.concentric.net [206.173.156.84]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA04604 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from shaggy@localhost) by houseofduck.dyn.ml.org (8.8.5/8.7.3) id JAA01027; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:27:13 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.1 [p0] on FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <199707241425.JAA01523@ns.tar.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:25:18 -0600 (MDT) Organization: Shaggy Enterprises From: Joshua Fielden To: "Richard Seaman, Jr." Subject: RE: Apache and Ports Policies in General Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk While I do have to agree in theory with you, I went to Apache.org and got 1.2.1, and it compiled "out-of-the-box." It seems from the web page that they make a special point of listing FreeBSD as one of the platforms that it does do this on. On 24-Jul-97 Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: >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? > > > > -- Joshua Fielden, shag@concentric.net SCSI is *not* magic. There are many technical reasons why it's occasionally nessicary to sacrifice a small goat to your SCSI chain.