David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost> writes: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:57:02PM +1200, David Sainty wrote: > > >>apache.mk normally picks up apache22, currently. > > >Well, that's not what you would get for binary packages at least. > > > > If apache24 is the defacto standard for binary packages, and has been for a > > well-tested period of time, maybe it's time mk/apache.mk updated too. > > > > Is that too rash for a freeze? > > > > Could be a highlight for Q3 :) > > AIUI, that shuold have been done quite some time ago. (not particularly directed at dholland@) In general, for changing the default version of big things, I'd like to see a proposal to change with an articulation of why (that would make sense to someone not following the details of the package in question) it's in the best interest of users and what the consequences are (will people running 2.2 have to upgrade to 2.4 in order to keep running binary packages, if they use particular packages)? I don't see this note being more then 10-20 lines, and would expect that someone in a position to propose this would have it all in their head already. > but, not in a freeze I think... This seems to me like too much during the freeze, espeically this one that's trying to have fewer changes and maybe end early. I think we should be only be fixing things that are regressions from the previous branch on some platform, are totally broken, or are security patches. And given that bulk builds produce ap22 and ap24 variants of most things, I'm not sure how much it matters.
Attachment:
pgp3YRQ4ZNckZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature