Re: RFC: Remove of "apache2" package

[Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>]

  From: Matthias Scheler <tron%NetBSD.org@localhost>

  Considering that ...
  1.) ... the Apache foundation advises to use 2.2 instead of 2.0 ...
  2.) ... upgrading from 2.0 to 2.2 requires none or minimal configuration
      changes ...
  3.) ... there have been reports about problems in the "apache2" package
      in "pkgsrc" in the past which people resolved by using the "apache22"
      package instead ...
  ... I would like to remove the "apache2" package from "pkgsrc".

This is very much premature.  The correct test is that

   the number of people who

      rely on the apache2 package, and

      we can't in good faith tell them that they are completely lame for
      not having upgraded

is vanishingly small, balanced with

  the maintenance cost to pkgsrc of having apache2 is big

So yes, ASF is saying to use 2.2, and that's different from "if you are
still using 2.0 you are a total idiot and we have not sympathy for you".
They didn't say that they won't release new 2.0 to fix security bugs.

Right now I am not seeing that it's hard to maintain apache2; I haven't
done any of the updates but would expect just a DISTNAME/distinfo change
and a quick PLIST check, and not a big deal.

Certainly the default apache should be 2.2, and we can put in DESCR for
apache2 that ASF recommends to use 2.2 instead, with both "people should
migrate" and "new installations SHOULD NOT use 2.0"..  And probably the
apr option should default to the one that works with 2.2, so subversion
gets built in a way that works when you want 2.2.  (2.0 works fine with
the apr1 that 2.2 needs.)

I know people with 2.0 installations, and even a 1.3 installation, and
while I would say they ought to upgrade, and I can't flame them as
totally lame.  Well, the 1.3 is borderline now, but not 2.