Fedora Legacy Test Update Notification: httpd and mod_ssl

[Jeff Sheltren]

On Oct 24, 2005, at 11:29 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:

> Jeff Sheltren wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Jim, perhaps some of your confusion comes from the fact that  
>> rh9, fc1, and fc2 all contain the mod_ssl package as part of the  
>> httpd package.  In the older rh 7.3, mod_ssl was separate from  
>> apache.
>>
>
> According to the release notes, 2 binary rpm packages were released  
> (both mod_ssl and httpd) for all FL platforms except rh73.
Yes, but for rh9 and up both mod_ssl and httpd are built from one  
SRPM - httpd.

>
>
>>> To excuse this as "Other's checked before asking" is not accurate  
>>> as the data just isn't there to support even having the ability  
>>> to check.  Show me discussions of this bug outside of a bugID  
>>> that isn't referenced anywhere else.  And please don't suggest  
>>> that I am to be trolling bugzilla every day for the hundreds of  
>>> packages for which I may or may not be interested in knowing if a  
>>> bug exists.
>>>
>>> The bottom line is that I regularly keep on top of RH73 bugs/ 
>>> updates/patches and I missed this.  OK, so I am human and subject  
>>> to errors, but this bug stayed well below the FL radar for many  
>>> months.  I have a pretty good record of downloading and testing  
>>> updates, so the fact that this critical one slipped by alarms me.
>>>
>>>
>> OK, sounds like you're just upset because you didn't see this  
>> until the updates-testing notification.  I'm not sure I understand  
>> what you're trying to say here.
>>
>
> What I am trying to say is this:
>
> I try very hard to contribute what I can to Fedora Legacy.  Yet  
> despite my best efforts I find it amazingly difficult to do  
> anything other than simply testing released packages.  I try to  
> stay on top of server related issues pertaining to RH7.3, things  
> exactly like mod_ssl and htttpd.  Yet this particular issue stayed  
> buried out of sight (again, someone please show me some recent  
> discussion or non-hidden notes regarding this).
>
> Rather than continuing to poke this fire, I am going to (once  
> again) ask all those involved to help make the process saner and  
> clearer so that those that want to help will be able to help.   
> Don't hide below the radar and then complain in other threads that  
> people aren't contributing.
>
> 'nuf said.
>

OK, that's perfectly valid.  And I'm very happy that you help out  
with testing packages - in fact, I think that package QA is where we  
need the most help.  But I do disagree with you about this issue  
being "buried out of sight".  All work on this bug was done using  
bugzilla where the ticket has been open for anyone to view (you don't  
even need to sign in).  In fact, I count comments there from seven  
different people, which is more than most other FL bugs I've dealt with.

So, to me this is not "hiding" at all.  But I would be interested to  
hear if you have any ideas for implementing your suggestion of making  
things easier for people to help.

-Jeff