upgrade path for distributions

[Alan DeKok]

Stephen Gran wrote:
> We already do, and that's part of the problem here, unfortunately.
> Trust me, I'm not loving the new package name idea and all that goes
> with it.

  Well, we're moving to calling the tarballs 'freeradius-server",
because the project is becoming bigger than just a RADIUS server.

>>  And why not call the binary "radiusd"?  I know it conflicts with
>> Debian's xtradius, etc.  But geez, does anyone *really* use that stuff
>> any more?
> 
> Heh, probably not, but since we ship a bunch of radiusd's, I think it
> would be impolite to take the name unilaterally.

  Yeah, but speaking as a (cough) completely unbiased observer, those
other RADIUS servers *suck*.  And I'm not talking about features.  Who
in their right mind would deploy a critical server which hasn't had a
release or a post to it's mailing list in 3 years?

>  That's why apache is
> shipped as apache/apache2 rather than httpd, for instance.

  Yeah, it doesn't mean I like it.

  And realistically speaking, 1.1.x isn't strictly backwards compatible,
either.  People have *had* to upgrade at some point.

  Once 2.0 is released, I *very* much doubt we'll continue with
development on the 1.1.x branch.  The new features are so powerful that
it's just too painful to use 1.1.x any more.

  Alan DeKok.