Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: [email protected]
Usertags: transition
We are in preparation of a transition of the Apache web server which is moving
to a new major release (from 2.2 to 2.4). This is going to affect a large
number of software in the Debian ecosystem, as Apache has a substantial number
of reverse dependencies which are going to need a source transition. There are
several classes of affected packages:
* modules: These need adjustments in their configuration, dependencies and
possibly some code changes
* web applications: These probably only need changes
to included configurations.
* gnome-user-share: This pacakge includes its own complete configuration which
needs to be updated.
We are willing to assist the affected reverse dependencies with patches, NMUs
and bug reports if required. First, let us point out the status quo. Apache
consists of three major packages currently:
* apache2 - an almost empty meta-package (depends on -common and a MPM package)
* apache2.2-bin - contains all binaries and modules, including MPM binaries
* apache2.2-common - containts init scripts, arch-independent data, conffiles
Additionally there are MPM packages (apache2-mpm-worker + 4 alternatives) which
are essentially empty, but mark an appropriate conflict resolution situation,
as these MPMs can't be used concurrently at the same time and some reverse
dependencies or users might have certain preferences. However, the actual
binaries already lie in the apache2.2-bin package, the MPM packages only put
symlinks in place. The upcoming upgrade breaks ABIs. Thus,
we are required to rename several packages. Our ABI didn't change since Etch,
so we expect people having a lot of unmaintained and third party modules
sitting around and such outdated modules would break the webserver at postinst
time or when trying to start the updated web server at latest. While we are at
it, we try to make future transitions more manageable as the current situation
is complicated to say the least (e.g. conffiles in apache2.2-common). The API
changes are incremental, however. The actual code changes required will be
rather small in most modules. That makes the transition a lot of work, but not
impossible. We do not expect any major API incompatibility, but some modules
(like mod_php and mod_perl) will need larger changes included in new upstream
versions.
In future we want three packages:
* apache2: containting conffiles, init scripts, Debian specifics
* apache2-bin: containing binaries, providing a versioned virtual package
determining the ABI. Reverse dependencies are supposed to depend on this
package exclusively (e.g. apache2-api-YYYYMMNN)
* apache2-data: containing arch-independent data (icons, error pages, ...)
The MPM packages are not needed anymore, as MPMs are simple modules in 2.4
which can be loaded at runtime. Additionally we need to rename the -dev
package, as we are going to get rid of the threaded/prefork distinction at -dev
level, too. To achieve a smooth upgrade path for all setups we are going to
need transitional packages. We think it is feasible to rename the -dev package
without transitional package, as we want to improve declaration of reverse
dependencies, so a source change is needed anyway. To assist package
maintainers we wrote a debhelper (dh_apache2) which helps maintainers setting
up appropriate dependencies as well as possbibly Lintian checks. We plan to
announce this change on a separate mail to debian-devel-announce once an upload
is ready.
Our suggested timeline:
* We hope to have a package ready for experimental in mid-March.
* We approach an upload to Sid in April, and would like to start filing bugs if
required by then as well
Depending on consensus, this opportunity could also be used to change
dependencies of web applications on web servers to some recommended defaults.
Lighttpd and nginx maintainers signaled interest to homogenize dependencies of
web applications.
Affected reverse dependencies:
73 Module source packages (from "dak rm -nR -b apache2.2-common
apache2-threaded-dev apache2-prefork-dev"):
apache-mod-auth-ntlm-winbind
apache-upload-progress-module
apparmor
axis2c
dacs
gridsite
libapache2-authcookie-perl
libapache2-mod-auth-cas
libapache2-mod-authn-sasl
libapache2-mod-authn-yubikey
libapache2-mod-authnz-external
libapache2-mod-auth-openid
libapache2-mod-auth-pam
libapache2-mod-auth-pgsql
libapache2-mod-auth-plain
libapache2-mod-authz-unixgroup
libapache2-mod-bw
libapache2-mod-defensible
libapache2-mod-encoding
libapache2-mod-fcgid
libapache2-mod-geoip
libapache2-mod-ldap-userdir
libapache2-mod-lisp
libapache2-mod-macro
libapache2-mod-perl2
libapache2-mod-python
libapache2-mod-qos
libapache2-mod-rivet
libapache2-mod-rpaf
libapache2-mod-ruid2
libapache2-mod-xsendfile
libapache2-reload-perl
libapache-authenhook-perl
libapache-mod-auth-kerb
libapache-mod-auth-radius
libapache-mod-evasive
libapache-mod-fastcgi/non-free
libapache-mod-jk
libapache-mod-layout
libapache-mod-log-sql
libapache-mod-musicindex
libapache-mod-random
libapache-mod-removeip
libapache-singleton-perl
libapreq2
libcgi-application-dispatch-perl
libembperl-perl
mod-auth-mysql
mod-authn-webid
mod-dnssd
mod-gnutls
mod-mime-xattr
mod-mono
mod-proxy-html
mod-ruby
modsecurity-apache
mod-spamhaus
mod-vhost-hash-alias
mod-vhost-ldap
mod-wsgi
neko
ocamlnet
parser
passenger
php5
rampart
scgi
shibboleth-sp2
speedy-cgi-perl
subversion
suphp
uwsgi
webauth
Source packages of web applications, etc.: 129 packages Searched by looking for
/etc/.*apache.* with apt-file. It is likely that not all of these require
adjustments.
acidbase
ampache
apt-cacher
auth2db
backuppc
bandwidthd
bcfg2
check-mk
chemical-structures
cipux-cat-web
collabtive
cricket
dcmtk
debian-edu-config
dhelp
dico
docbookwiki
doc-central
docvert
dotclear
dpkg-www
d-push
drupal6
drupal7
dsc-statistics
dwww
emacspeak
emboss-explorer
fai
fail2ban
fookebox
freeradius
frontaccounting
fusionforge
gallery
gallery2
ganglia
gbrowse
git
glpi
gosa
haci
heartbeat
ikiwiki-hosting
ipplan
iptotal
jffnms
jpoker
jsmath
jsxgraph
knowledgeroot
kolabd
kolab-webadmin
kolab-webclient
ldap-account-manager
lemonldap-ng
letodms
libapache-gallery-perl
libapache-mod-fastcgi
lightsquid
linkchecker
lire
logcheck
lurker
lwat
mahara
mailman
mediawiki
minit
mobyle
movabletype-opensource
mumble
mumble-django
munin
mythweb
nagvis
nanourl
netams
netdisco
Netdisco
ojs
phamm
phpgacl
phpldapadmin
phpmyadmin
phppgadmin
php-xajax
piwigo
pnopaste
pnp4nagios
poker-network
request-tracker3.8
request-tracker4
roundcube
routino
rtgui
rtpg
sagan-rules
scuttle
semanticscuttle
simba
simplesamlphp
sitesummary
slbackup-php
smb2www
smbind
smokeping
spip
spotweb
squirrelmail
sugarplum
sympa
torrentflux
torrus
twitter-bootstrap
typo3-src
ukolovnik
usemod-wiki
w3c-linkchecker
webgui
websvn
wims
xemacs21-packages
xsp
xymon
yocto-reader
zabbix
zoneminder
zoph
2 special cases (from "dak rm -nR -b apache2.2-bin"):
gnome-user-share
mod-dnssd
Acknowledgement sent
to Julien Cristau <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:39:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 00:43:27 +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
> Our suggested timeline:
>
> * We hope to have a package ready for experimental in mid-March.
> * We approach an upload to Sid in April, and would like to start filing bugs if
> required by then as well
>
With apache 2.4 now in experimental, I'd suggest filing bugs on reverse
dependencies ASAP, to give maintainers as much time as possible to
update their packages and get them tested.
Cheers,
Julien
Acknowledgement sent
to Arno Töll <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Sun, 01 Apr 2012 22:09:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03.03.2012 00:43, Arno Töll wrote:
> Affected reverse dependencies:
>
> 73 Module source packages (from "dak rm -nR -b apache2.2-common
> apache2-threaded-dev apache2-prefork-dev"):
[...]
For these packages the mass bugs were failed today. They are being
tracked under the usertag "apache24transition" for the user
"[email protected]", see [1].
[1]
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=apache24transition;[email protected]
- --
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=unvF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Acknowledgement sent
to Arno Töll <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:48:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hello again,
we've just uploaded Apache2 2.4.2-1 to experimental. We consider this
version matured enough to be used for a wider audience. Therefore, we
kindly ask for permission to upload our package to unstable as soon as
it fits for you.
> 73 Module source packages (from "dak rm -nR -b apache2.2-common
> apache2-threaded-dev apache2-prefork-dev"):
Along that upload I would like to raise remaining bug severities of
packages outlined in that list above and which effectively means, these
bugs would become release critical.
> Source packages of web applications, etc.: 129 packages Searched by looking for
> /etc/.*apache.* with apt-file. It is likely that not all of these require
> adjustments.
>
Finally, I'd like to mass file bugs with severity "important" for these
web applications.
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Acknowledgement sent
to Russ Allbery <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:39:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Arno Töll <[email protected]> writes:
> we've just uploaded Apache2 2.4.2-1 to experimental. We consider this
> version matured enough to be used for a wider audience. Therefore, we
> kindly ask for permission to upload our package to unstable as soon as
> it fits for you.
>> 73 Module source packages (from "dak rm -nR -b apache2.2-common
>> apache2-threaded-dev apache2-prefork-dev"):
> Along that upload I would like to raise remaining bug severities of
> packages outlined in that list above and which effectively means, these
> bugs would become release critical.
Just to mention, while I am going to start working on this as soon as I
can, I do have a couple of Apache module packages for which the port to
2.4 is definitely non-trivial. For Shibboleth, for example, it's going to
requite a significant upstream release since the way that it handles
authorization rules doesn't work at all. Upstream is working on that, but
it's going to be a little bit more.
I don't know if that's an argument against making all of those bugs
release-critical... but certainly they do need to be fixed before the
release, so it's directly true. I kind of don't want the working packages
to be removed from testing, though (not that making the bugs RC causes
that directly).
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Acknowledgement sent
to Julien Cristau <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:39:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 22:46:07 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> > Source packages of web applications, etc.: 129 packages Searched by looking for
> > /etc/.*apache.* with apt-file. It is likely that not all of these require
> > adjustments.
> >
>
> Finally, I'd like to mass file bugs with severity "important" for these
> web applications.
>
What prevents you from doing that now? If you give other maintainers
more time to adjust their packages, you'll have to fix fewer packages
yourself...
Cheers,
Julien
Acknowledgement sent
to Arno Töll <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:06:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hi,
On 16.04.2012 19:37, Julien Cristau wrote:
> What prevents you from doing that now? If you give other maintainers
> more time to adjust their packages, you'll have to fix fewer packages
> yourself...
we didn't until now, as we didn't consider the apache2 default
configuration fixed until the last upload. Now, as that's sorted out we
could possibly proceed in doing so.
However, I was not sure if we should hassle web application maintainers
already, as the apache2 package is not in unstable yet and their web
applications most likely rely on a third party module (think of mod_php5
for example) which is not available for Apache 2.4 at the moment.
This leaves maintainers of web application with a transition bug they
can't work on easily as it is blocked by a transition of other packages
first.
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Acknowledgement sent
to Julien Cristau <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:15:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 20:02:26 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> However, I was not sure if we should hassle web application maintainers
> already, as the apache2 package is not in unstable yet and their web
> applications most likely rely on a third party module (think of mod_php5
> for example) which is not available for Apache 2.4 at the moment.
>
One way to avoid this is to get a php5 uploaded to experimental built
against the new apache.
Cheers,
Julien
Acknowledgement sent
to Arno Töll <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:15:08 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hi,
On 21.04.2012 15:10, Julien Cristau wrote:
> One way to avoid this is to get a php5 uploaded to experimental built
> against the new apache.
We already requested PHP maintainers to do so. Alternatively PHP web
applications can test by using a (Fast-)CGI alternative.
We just filed the web app bugs a minute ago, too - just for the record.
They are tracked as user [email protected] usertag
apache24webapptransition. See [1]
[1]
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=apache24webapptransition;[email protected]
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Acknowledgement sent
to OndÅej Surý <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 23 Apr 2012 06:24:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 15:13, Arno Töll <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 21.04.2012 15:10, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> One way to avoid this is to get a php5 uploaded to experimental built
>> against the new apache.
>
> We already requested PHP maintainers to do so. Alternatively PHP web
> applications can test by using a (Fast-)CGI alternative.
I'll take care of it within 1(ish) week (I will be outside internet
access from Thu to Sun,
so if I don't make it I will have to wait to next Mon-Tue).
O.
--
Ondřej Surý <[email protected]>
Acknowledgement sent
to Arno Töll <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Sat, 05 May 2012 16:36:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hi there,
I'm sorry to bother you once again and you're probably quite annoyed by
me already and perhaps quite busy with the upcoming stable point
release, too.
Having that said, I'd still like to ask you for permission to upload our
Apache package to Unstable. Pretending we would really freeze by June,
01 ("However, if you want your changes in Wheezy, please be sure to
upload them *before* June." [1]) there is *lots* of work pending,
especially on the module front.
Of a total of 73 packages, this is the status quo:
* 9 reverse dependencies have a package in Experimental already which
only needs another upload to Unstable after the web server reached Unstable
* 2 reverse dependencies have a 2.4 aware upload to Unstable pending
* 3 reverse dependencies have a 2.4 aware patch supplied to the BTS
* During a recent rebuild, 20 reverse dependencies turned out to be
trivially portable to 2.4. It only needs a Debian specific update.
* The remaining 39 reverse dependencies need porting or another upstream
release.
Among the most important reverse dependencies (mod_perl and mod_php5),
the mod_php5 package builds fine for Apache2 2.4 already, and sf is
currently looking to aid porting mod_perl to 2.4.
[1] <[email protected]>
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Acknowledgement sent
to Stefan Fritsch <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Fri, 18 May 2012 04:57:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hi,
we have decided to postpone the transition to apache2 2.4. The main
blocker is that mod_perl needs a major new upstream release which very
likely won't be ready in time for Wheezy and we don't want to release
Wheezy without mod_perl.
Cheers,
Stefan
Acknowledgement sent
to Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Fri, 18 May 2012 09:18:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
tag 661958 wontfix
thanks
Stefan Fritsch <[email protected]> (18/05/2012):
> we have decided to postpone the transition to apache2 2.4. The main
> blocker is that mod_perl needs a major new upstream release which very
> likely won't be ready in time for Wheezy and we don't want to release
> Wheezy without mod_perl.
Thanks for the heads-up. It looked like there was too little time left
to process this transition in a sane way anyway.
Tagging wontfix for now as that's the first transition which isn't
happening. Either we'll just close this bug report, or remove the tag
once the release happens.
Mraw,
KiBi.
Acknowledgement sent
to Arno Töll <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Fri, 18 May 2012 09:33:18 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hi,
On 18.05.2012 11:14, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Tagging wontfix for now as that's the first transition which isn't
> happening. Either we'll just close this bug report, or remove the tag
> once the release happens.
The latter please. We'd like to start the transition as soon as the
Testing is freeze is lifted again after Wheezy.
We thought you might be more willing to accept a major breakage right
after lifting the freeze with Wheezy+1 being in a distant future.
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Acknowledgement sent
to Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Fri, 18 May 2012 10:06:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
tag 661958 - wontfix
tag 661958 + wheezy-ignore
thanks
Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]> (18/05/2012):
> Tagging wontfix for now as that's the first transition which isn't
> happening. Either we'll just close this bug report, or remove the tag
> once the release happens.
Adjusting tags after I got an answer on #debian-release. ;-)
Mraw,
KiBi.
Acknowledgement sent
to Arno Töll <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Sat, 04 May 2013 16:15:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hi there,
Now that Wheezy is ehrm virtually released ..., we'd like to reboot the
Apache 2.4 transition process as soon as possible. In other words, we'd
like to break Sid - as far as Apache is involved - in a foreseeable
future. With your permission to proceed as suggested pending, we'd like
to propose this procedure to continue with the Apache 2.4 transition:
*) Aim for an upload of Apache 2.4 in June. The exact date is not fixed
and determined by two factors: You approving the process itself, and the
availability of a 2.4 port for certain reverse dependencies (see next
point).
*) Since this upload is going to break all existing module reverse
dependencies, this causes bad breakage to users of Apache in Sid. We're
aware of that, but it can't be avoided entirely since a transition in
Experimental only does not seem to work out that well, as we're trying
to prod the maintainers of affected packages for over a year.
However, to smoothen the transition as much as possible, we'd like to
wait with an upload to Sid until these reverse dependencies have updated
packages available and then do a coordinated upload with the respective
maintainers (they're all CC:-ed):
- mod_php
- mod_security
- mod_wsgi
- mod_dnssd (gnome-user-share)
- mod_jk
- mod_fcgid
- subversion
This is a somewhat biased choice, based on the popularity of the
modules, and their relative importance in the Apache eco-system itself.
PHP, and WSGI for example have reverse dependencies on their own, which
are affected by our transition, too. Please maintainers of these
package, do help us so that we can do the upload in a timely manner.
Maintainers, if you need help us to transition with these modules, let
the Apache maintainers know. We'll help you.
*) Once the package is uploaded to Unstable together with a reasonably
small subset of reverse dependencies as defined above, we'd like to
successively increase the amount of transitioned packages to a larger
amount (see the full list in previous posts) before considering a
migration to Testing.
It is up to decide together with you when exactly this is going to
happen, but I do not suspect this being the case until (end of) summer.
At some point we'd like to ask you to remove remaining non-transitioned
packages from Testing so that we migrate the already transitioned
packages, including our own. Until then, we'd file a "testing migration
blocking bug" against our own package, so that it can't migrate to
Testing by accident.
*) Once the package has reached Testing, we'd like to address a
transition of web-applications reverse depending on Apache. This cannot
be parallelized easily, because most of them are depending on some other
third party module, too. On the upside, web applications are somewhat
broken during the migration, but this may only affect the integration of
the Apache web server, whereas the application itself remains functional.
Does this make sense to you?
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Changed Bug title to 'transition: apache2 2.4' from 'transition: apache2'
Request was from Julien Cristau <[email protected]>
to [email protected].
(Sun, 05 May 2013 16:51:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent
to Julien Cristau <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 06 May 2013 21:42:12 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 18:12:56 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Now that Wheezy is ehrm virtually released ..., we'd like to reboot the
> Apache 2.4 transition process as soon as possible. In other words, we'd
> like to break Sid - as far as Apache is involved - in a foreseeable
> future. With your permission to proceed as suggested pending, we'd like
> to propose this procedure to continue with the Apache 2.4 transition:
>
Are there bugs filed for all reverse deps that need source changes for
apache 2.4? Can you set them as blocking this (#661958) bug?
Thanks,
Julien
Acknowledgement sent
to Arno Töll <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 06 May 2013 22:09:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hi,
On 06.05.2013 23:28, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Are there bugs filed for all reverse deps that need source changes for
> apache 2.4? Can you set them as blocking this (#661958) bug?
yes, they are. They are all noted in [1]. I also sent a BTS command of
hell which should do so.
[1]
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=apache24transition;[email protected];archive=both
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Acknowledgement sent
to Ondřej Surý <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Tue, 07 May 2013 08:09:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Arno,
I have a question on default behaviour of apache2_invoke.
If I do:
apt-get install libapache2-mod-somemodule
a2dismod somemodule
apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
# libapache2-mod-somemodule gets updated
Will that get somemodule reenabled?
# Automatically added by dh_apache2
if [ "$1" = "configure" ] && true; then
if [ -e /usr/share/apache2/apache2-maintscript-helper ] ; then
. /usr/share/apache2/apache2-maintscript-helper
for conf in wsgi ; do
apache2_invoke enmod $conf || exit $?
done
fi
fi
You probably need to change the inserted code to:
for conf in <modulelist>; do
if [ -z "$2" ]; then
apache2_invoke enmod $conf || exit $?
else if a2query -q -m $conf; then
apache2_reload restart || exit $?
fi
done
(And why there's the "&& true" part?)
O.
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Arno Töll <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Now that Wheezy is ehrm virtually released ..., we'd like to reboot the
> Apache 2.4 transition process as soon as possible. In other words, we'd
> like to break Sid - as far as Apache is involved - in a foreseeable
> future. With your permission to proceed as suggested pending, we'd like
> to propose this procedure to continue with the Apache 2.4 transition:
>
> *) Aim for an upload of Apache 2.4 in June. The exact date is not fixed
> and determined by two factors: You approving the process itself, and the
> availability of a 2.4 port for certain reverse dependencies (see next
> point).
>
> *) Since this upload is going to break all existing module reverse
> dependencies, this causes bad breakage to users of Apache in Sid. We're
> aware of that, but it can't be avoided entirely since a transition in
> Experimental only does not seem to work out that well, as we're trying
> to prod the maintainers of affected packages for over a year.
>
> However, to smoothen the transition as much as possible, we'd like to
> wait with an upload to Sid until these reverse dependencies have updated
> packages available and then do a coordinated upload with the respective
> maintainers (they're all CC:-ed):
>
> - mod_php
> - mod_security
> - mod_wsgi
> - mod_dnssd (gnome-user-share)
> - mod_jk
> - mod_fcgid
> - subversion
>
> This is a somewhat biased choice, based on the popularity of the
> modules, and their relative importance in the Apache eco-system itself.
> PHP, and WSGI for example have reverse dependencies on their own, which
> are affected by our transition, too. Please maintainers of these
> package, do help us so that we can do the upload in a timely manner.
>
> Maintainers, if you need help us to transition with these modules, let
> the Apache maintainers know. We'll help you.
>
> *) Once the package is uploaded to Unstable together with a reasonably
> small subset of reverse dependencies as defined above, we'd like to
> successively increase the amount of transitioned packages to a larger
> amount (see the full list in previous posts) before considering a
> migration to Testing.
>
> It is up to decide together with you when exactly this is going to
> happen, but I do not suspect this being the case until (end of) summer.
>
> At some point we'd like to ask you to remove remaining non-transitioned
> packages from Testing so that we migrate the already transitioned
> packages, including our own. Until then, we'd file a "testing migration
> blocking bug" against our own package, so that it can't migrate to
> Testing by accident.
>
> *) Once the package has reached Testing, we'd like to address a
> transition of web-applications reverse depending on Apache. This cannot
> be parallelized easily, because most of them are depending on some other
> third party module, too. On the upside, web applications are somewhat
> broken during the migration, but this may only affect the integration of
> the Apache web server, whereas the application itself remains functional.
>
> Does this make sense to you?
>
>
> --
> with kind regards,
> Arno Töll
> IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
> GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pkg-php-maint mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-php-maint
--
Ondřej Surý <[email protected]>
Acknowledgement sent
to Arno Töll <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 13 May 2013 08:39:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hi,
would the Release Team be comfortable with an upload of Apache 2.4 to
Sid on May, 20? That's a bit sooner than I expected, but on the other
hand there is not much to gain to wait longer.
We made good progress with our list of critical reverse dependencies so
that only one is missing. Hence I believe, an upload on that date is
feasible.
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Acknowledgement sent
to Ondřej Surý <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 13 May 2013 08:57:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
I can ack that PHP 5.5 RC1 is prepared to enter the unstable.
This will also trigger the libgd and php5.5 transitions.
O.
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Arno Töll <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> would the Release Team be comfortable with an upload of Apache 2.4 to
> Sid on May, 20? That's a bit sooner than I expected, but on the other
> hand there is not much to gain to wait longer.
>
> We made good progress with our list of critical reverse dependencies so
> that only one is missing. Hence I believe, an upload on that date is
> feasible.
>
> --
> with kind regards,
> Arno Töll
> IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
> GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
>
--
Ondřej Surý <[email protected]>
Acknowledgement sent
to Arno Töll <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Thu, 16 May 2013 18:15:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hi,
On 13.05.2013 10:51, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> I can ack that PHP 5.5 RC1 is prepared to enter the unstable.
> This will also trigger the libgd and php5.5 transitions.
jcristau and me wondered if you want us to wait until you have a libgd
package ready? There seems to be some discussion going on on d-devel
related to that.
Could you please clarify?
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Acknowledgement sent
to Ondřej Surý <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Thu, 16 May 2013 19:39:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Arno Töll <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 13.05.2013 10:51, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> I can ack that PHP 5.5 RC1 is prepared to enter the unstable.
>> This will also trigger the libgd and php5.5 transitions.
>
> jcristau and me wondered if you want us to wait until you have a libgd
> package ready? There seems to be some discussion going on on d-devel
> related to that.
>
> Could you please clarify?
I have contacted all upstream binding authors and all of them, who get
back to me, report success, so I think we are safe to go.
Right now I have added one more patch (reported in Debian, fixed in
upstream) and I will be uploading to unstable.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý <[email protected]>
Acknowledgement sent
to Julien Cristau <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Thu, 23 May 2013 06:36:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:51:58 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> I can ack that PHP 5.5 RC1 is prepared to enter the unstable.
>
> This will also trigger the libgd and php5.5 transitions.
>
OK, let's go ahead with these now.
Cheers,
Julien
Acknowledgement sent
to Arno Töll <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Thu, 23 May 2013 11:15:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hello fellow maintainers,
we are ready to upload Apache2 2.4 to Debian Sid now. This means the
transition is effectively starting now, and going to break your modules.
We have scheduled the upload for May 30, 2013 BEFORE the 19:52 UTC
dinstall on ftp-master.
To minimize the breakage to our Sid users, we'd ask all of you having a
transitioned package ready in Experimental, to make an upload to Sid
AFTER the 13:52 UTC dinstall, and BEFORE 19:52 UTC [1].
Let us know if you need a sponsor, or our help to upload your packages
in that time window. Please note, you could also use the DELAYED queue
to make timed upload [2].
[1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/#dinstall
[2] http://ftp-master.debian.org/deferred.html
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Acknowledgement sent
to Arno Töll <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Thu, 23 May 2013 12:00:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hi,
On 23.05.2013 13:46, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Le 23/05/2013 13:13, Arno Töll a écrit :
>> we are ready to upload Apache2 2.4 to Debian Sid now. This means the
>> transition is effectively starting now, and going to break your modules.
>
> There are currently ~20 source entangled OCaml-related packages waiting
> to migrate to testing (see "Ocsigen" section in [1]) + a number of
> binNMUs including ocamlnet. Please wait for this to happen before
> uploading apache.
please coordinate this in #661958. I got an ACK of the Release Team, so
I don't know if they had your issue on the radar or not. Either way, I
know nothing about OCaml and your transition.
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
Acknowledgement sent
to Stéphane Glondu <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Thu, 23 May 2013 12:09:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#666825: Apache 2.4 upload date scheduled for May 30
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:05:58 +0200
Le 23/05/2013 13:57, Arno Töll a écrit :
> please coordinate this in #661958. I got an ACK of the Release Team, so
> I don't know if they had your issue on the radar or not. Either way, I
> know nothing about OCaml and your transition.
See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=666825#47 (you were
also a direct recipient of this mail).
Cheers,
--
Stéphane
Acknowledgement sent
to Arno Töll <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <[email protected]>.
(Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:03:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hi,
as requested I propose Ben file patterns for the transition.
For modules, it is easy:
affects: build-depends: apache2-threaded-dev|apache2-prefork-dev
bad: build-depends: apache2-threaded-dev|apache2-prefork-dev
good: build-depends: apache2-dev
or, alternatively:
affects: depends apache2.2-common|apache2.2-bin
bad: depends: apache2-mpm-(prefork|worker|event|itk)| apache2.2-common
good: depends: apache2-api-20120211
For web applications it's much harder to tell. It's not easy to tell
whether they are even affected. We are currently working together with
piuparts maintainer to spot problems at runtime.
--
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
On Sat, 2013-05-04 at 18:12 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> Now that Wheezy is ehrm virtually released ..., we'd like to reboot the
> Apache 2.4 transition process as soon as possible.
This is all done now:
apache2 | 2.4.6-2 | testing | source, amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc
php5 | 5.5.1+dfsg-1 | testing | source, all
Regards,
Adam
Debbugs is free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License version 2. The current version can be obtained
from https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/.