pigmej at gmail
Feb 26, 2013, 2:07 PM
Post #17 of 20
(502 views)
Permalink
|
You're right, that apache doesn't require manual compilation (except when it crashes...). But cherokee dev process is way different, also man power is different. Keeping up to date distro packages IS hard work. That's one of the problems.
You should not be worried about manual compilation :) it's easy and when you will use --prefix=/opt/cherokee your setup will be separated from main distro things.
I strongly recommend this to you. That's obvoiusly caused by current cherokee state, where releasing versions would be not that smart, isn't it Stefan ?
Best regards,
Jedrzej Nowak
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Garrett <bradezone [at] gmail>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:23:12
To: - -<stadtpirat11 [at] ymail>
Cc: Johannes Becker<jo.becker [at] gmail>; Stefan de Konink<stefan [at] konink>; cherokee [at] lists<cherokee [at] lists>; Jędrzej Nowak<pigmej [at] gmail>
Subject: Re: [Cherokee] cherokee-admin suddenly not working
I suppose I could do this, but it concerns me that cherokee would not keep
its ubuntu packages up to date. All mainstream apps/utilities should do
this IMO. Pretty sure apache never requires manual compilation, ya know?
Having said that, I definitely appreciate the work that's been done on
Cherokee--I prefer it to the alternatives, but please, somebody get the
packages up to date! (Although like I said, my version number is the same
that is on the Cherokee home page.)
--brad g.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Visit www.bradezone.com today and be the trailblazer of your peer group.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:31 AM, - - <stadtpirat11 [at] ymail> wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Brad Garrett wrote:
> >
> >> I really don't want to get into the whole manual compiling business. The
> >> package should be robust enough.
>
> >> Am 26.02.2013 um 10:53 schrieb Stefan de Konink <stefan [at] konink>:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Brad Garrett wrote:
> >>
> >>> I really don't want to get into the whole manual compiling business.
> The
> >>> package should be robust enough.
> >>
> >> You updated ;) Not us.
> >
> > Seriously?? Is this supposed to be an official statement?
>
> I am sure Stefan was just joking, don't take it too seriously.
>
> But Cherokee on Github and Cherokee in the Ubuntu repositories are two
> totally different spheres of responsibility. The Ubuntu package is **OLD**
> and I am 99,9% sure that the compiled version is working. If someone would
> be able to maintain the Ubuntu packages, they would be up to date. It's not
> something that is ignored on purpose.
>
> Once you are into compiling, there is no real difference in upgrading a
> package, or upgrading the compiled version. If you need help compiling, or
> have questions, ask here, or ask me directly.
>
> Stadtpirat
>
>
>
|
