apache 2.4

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Apr 19, 2012, at 09:01, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:

> Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> 
>> I just read in their notes that all plugins must be recompiled, and that only a few source changes might be required. But I have not tried it.
>> 
>> If anyone tries 2.4.2, let me know the results.
> 
> Do we need a new apache24 port?

I'd rather not, if we can possibly avoid it. Doing so would imply that apache2 would have to be renamed to apache22 as well, and apache24, apache22 and apache20 can be installed simultaneously, which would require some reengineering of two or all three of those ports.

We only added an apache20 port after the apache2 port was upgraded to version 2.2.x, because I believe one single module (a pre-compiled module, not in MacPorts) was not compatible with 2.2.x. That's no longer the case since some time so I think we could just delete the apache20 port.


> I think that livecheck didn't pick 2.4 up is due to this being a major
> rewrite of the codebase.

It was not intentional that livecheck didn't pick this up, and I've already fixed the livecheck to pick it up.


> I think that we'll at least need to have 2.2 in
> macports until all plugins have been confirmed working.

I have no immediate plans to update apache2 to 2.4.x. The only apache module I use is mod_dav_svn from subversion; since it's already been reported that that doesn't work, I plan to wait until at least that is resolved.

Once we're ready to do so, I suggest we update apache2 to 2.4.x, rather than create a new apache24 port. If problems are reported with individual modules we can deal with them then. If necessary then, we can make a new apache22 port, but again I'd rather avoid that.


Note the apache2 port is openmaintainer so if someone feels they know exactly what needs to be done to upgrade it and make this a smooth transition, go for it.


> Apache has still got apache20, apache22 as legacy versions.


I'm sure they do, but that doesn't necessarily dictate that that's what MacPorts should do.