upgrade path for distributions

[Peter Nixon]

On Sun 02 Sep 2007, Alan DeKok wrote:
> 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?

Yeah, for the record though, I am all for using /etc/freeradius and 
using /usr/sbin/freeradiusd as the binary.

> >  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.

We should keep in mind however that there are distros that maintain backwards 
compatibility and support for up to 7 years. I am not saying we should go 
out of our way, but if its not difficult we should address any major 
security issues found in the 1.1.x branch for a while to come at least..

New features for 1.1.x would of course be a complete waste of energy.

Regards
-- 

Peter Nixon
http://peternixon.net/