[Xymon] Call for 4.3.29 Patches

[Bruce Ferrell]

On 3/26/19 4:41 PM, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:23:33PM -0700, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
>>> * 66_apache2.4.patch: Some Apache 2.4 fixes. Since Apache 2.2 is End
>>>    of Life already, IMHO you do not need to care for the old syntax
>>>    anymore. Then again, some distributions with long-term support might
>>>    still have Apache 2.2, so you might want to cross-check if that has
>>>    some impact there.
>> while Apache 2.2 is EOL, there are a LOT of distros and
>> installations that still have it running running back ports.
> So far I only can come up with RHEL/CentOS 6, Debian 7 Wheezy ELTS
> (EoL in about two months) and Ubuntu 12.04 ESM (i.e. paid-only LTS)
> who still provide Apache 2.2.
>
> At least Wheezy and Ubuntu 12.04 ship Xymon out of the box and I would
> be surprised if anyone on these releases follows upstream source code
> instead of using the distro-provided packages (with older Xymon
> versions).
>
> So probably the only still relevant distro shipping Apache 2.2 is
> RHEL/CentOS 6. JC probably knows better how wide-spread Xymon is
> there.

And variants of RHEL/Centos... The first that comes to mind is Scientific Linux out of Fermi Labs.

I do agree the Deb/Ubuntu types probably don't build from scratch.

>> I'd say it costs nothing to leave in
> IMHO the cost is primarily to figure out if a case switch is needed
> between Apache 2.2 and 2.4.
>
> The patch _is_ needed if you want to run your Apache 2.4 without
> mod_access_compat — which probably will vanish in some future Apache
> release as its sole purpose is to provide Apache 2.2
> authentication/authorization syntax in Apache 2.4, i.e. needs to be
> applied at some point in the future for sure.

My observation on my systems, the "case switch" is right in the Apache configuration file as Apache directives, testing for the correct apache module.

The fact the the Apache configuration "just works" no matter WHAT, was a very pleasant change from ye olden dayes, when I had to craft the config myself.... Thanks JC!

>> and has the potential of creating a lot of heartache by taking it
>> out...
> Only if there are people out there who don't rely on distro-built
> packages and want the newest version of Xymon on their oldest boxes,

You mean the vast majority of systems admins?  As a systems admin, I don't *tend" to do forklift updates... the entire system to update an application.  That is a HUGE amount of 
pain and effort and I tend to develop resentments around it... To the point of finding things that aren't so problematic.

So dropping it means running systems suddenly can't update.  OK, can't is probably an overstatement... It's not as bad as demanding a whole different glibc but I'd say it's NOT 
particularly friendly to people who use the code or you want to use it.