Comment 13 for bug 80609

I appreciate the concern. However this is required in live operation,
and is being done manually by Ruby on Rails houses the world over. So
it can't be that much of a problem otherwise people wouldn't be
building businesses on the back of it.

Certainly I don't hear a lot of complaints of shared library failures,
(but that may be because that bit of the package isn't running.)

Perhaps the dependencies within apache2 are too tight, or perhaps the
package could do with splitting. Running a backport could help bring
that to light.

Real businesses like to use 6.06 LTS for all the usual good reasons of
stability and security. It seems a bit of a failure of free software
that they have to look to unofficial archives, and manual compliation
to get the job done.

What do you need to see to get this through?

On 8/2/07, Lionel Porcheron <email address hidden> wrote:
> This request has already been rejected in the past.
>
> Considering the number of modules you have to backport (43 at first
> approximation) and the time needed for apache2.2 transition during
> feisty dev cycle (we spent something like one moth tracking unmet dep)
> backporting this backport too risky for me.
>
> Let's see what other think... Scott ? :)
>
> --
> Port apache2 2.2.3 from feisty back to dapper
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/80609
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>