Ryan Bloom wrote:
I think we all agree that once a tarball
is public (meaning that non-developers have the *potential* of
grabbing it) if there's something wrong with it, we have to bump
before we reroll.
If it makes it to /www.apache.org/dist/httpd/, then I agree. If the only place
From: Victor J. Orlikowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Ugh. Behind on mail.
My fault; needed it for cadaver for testing... ;)
Victor: You need a little context on your mail. I don't know about others,
but I have no idea what you are replying to.
Joshua.
My apologies.
The context was to provide a semi-humorous reply to the breakage I
caused Jeff by installing Expat on the AIX box we use.
Been a while since the mail, been a while since I posted last.
Grrr. ;)
Victor
--
Victor J. Orlikowski | The Wall is Down, But the Threat Remains!
Victor J. Orlikowski wrote:
Ugh. Behind on mail.
My fault; needed it for cadaver for testing... ;)
Why do I feel like I just entered an episode of 6 Feet Under? :)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
It would be rather cool, however, to have and index.html
and full.html in one place, and not rely on QUERY_STRING
so much.
*shrug* Go ahead and break it apart -- but only if you
personally commit to keep all the pieces in sync, and easily
accessible/printable
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
++1... this shouldn't be a huge hangup. But Josh has a point...
What is the resistance to bumping? It seems to me that we're
back to that -- a meaningless effort to keep the numbers from
incrementing. The conclusion drawn a while ago (thanks to Roy's
clewbat)
Ryan Bloom wrote:
Yes, at this point, we have announced the tarball, and we can't replace
it again. However, at the time, the tarball was just being discussed on
the development list, and it hadn't been officially announced as a beta
candidate, so replacing it was fine to do.
I disagree.
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 10:15:51AM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
I disagree. Once the tarball has been created the number cannot
be used again. Too many eyes watch this list and the site and
siphon off tarballs as soon as they're created (much less
announced).
Part of that was
Ryan Bloom wrote:
Yes, at this point, we have announced the tarball, and we can't replace
it again. However, at the time, the tarball was just being discussed on
the development list, and it hadn't been officially announced as a beta
candidate, so replacing it was fine to do.
Ryan Bloom wrote:
My point is that I disagree with that. We have been bumping tags on
files when releasing 2.0 since 2.0.16, and we aren't even talking about
bumping a tag here. We are just talking about rolling the tarball on a
different machine than was originally used. The code didn't
From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Ian was hesitant to bump to 2.0.32 because he was under the
impression that it was not permitted to bump so close to a previous
tag. He was the RM, so it was his call.
This argument has been had befor (ad naseum), but...
This is based on
From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Ian was hesitant to bump to 2.0.32 because he was under the
impression that it was not permitted to bump so close to a previous
tag. He was the RM, so it was his call.
This argument has been had befor (ad naseum), but...
This is
Ryan Bloom wrote:
Not long after the current tag/roll procedure was developed, we had this
same situation, and Roy himself agreed that rolling more than once a
week discouraged people from testing the tarballs.
Not sure what this Roy himself comment means... like it's some sort
of Voice
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Ryan Bloom wrote:
Not long after the current tag/roll procedure was developed, we had
this
same situation, and Roy himself agreed that rolling more than once a
week discouraged people from testing the tarballs.
Not sure what this Roy
I lost a machine today due to a fscked up flash update utility.
You are warned :)
From: Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 9:10 AM
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
It would be rather cool, however, to have and index.html
and full.html in one place, and
From: Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 1:12 PM
No that isn't what this is based on. It is based on the fact that
tagging the tree with two different versions within two days discourages
people from testing. If I roll a release every few days, why should
anybody
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Greg Ames [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a very error prone part of our process. I got around it in 2_0_28 by
sending preliminary tarballs to people on platforms I knew were problematic,
before making anything public. Madhu told me my first tarball built with
Bill Stoddard wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:45:56PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
httpd-2.0.31 does not build on NetWare because of a screwed up #ifdef
APR_HAS_SHARED_MEMORY in scoreboard.c/ap_reopen_scoreboard(). The fix
for this has already been checked in but I'm not going to
Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the NW patch is in there.
the non-crap tarballs are in the /dist directory.
+1 for FreeBSD 3.4...
I unpacked it, did binbuild, did the binbuild installation, and
hammered* it over local LAN with 200,000 requests (mix of CGI, / to
drive lots of wrowe
Jim Jagielski wrote:
So I re-rolled on daedalus for most
platforms, and on Linux w/autoconf 1.4.2 for Darwin.
I think Greg mean libtool 1.4.2.
AIX definitely needs libtool 1.4.2.
I thought libtool 1.4.2 did *not* work for Darwin/OS X 10.1.x... I can
check here. (the
Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm still struggling with the tarball on AIX. I think it is just a
matter of cleaning up libtool 1.3 droplets so that a fresh buildconf
does what it is supposed to do.
That and, for me, working around the fact that somebody installed an
expat RPM on
From: Ben Hyde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 9:20 PM
Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 05:34:51PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
...
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2_0_31-alpha.tar.gz
Why can't we name our damned tarballs and resulting
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 11:03 AM
From: Ben Hyde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 9:20 PM
Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 05:34:51PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
...
Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm still struggling with the tarball on AIX. I think it is just a
matter of cleaning up libtool 1.3 droplets so that a fresh buildconf
does what it is supposed to do.
That and, for me, working around the
Bill Stoddard wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:45:56PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
httpd-2.0.31 does not build on NetWare because of a screwed up
#ifdef
APR_HAS_SHARED_MEMORY in scoreboard.c/ap_reopen_scoreboard().
The
fix
for this has already been checked in but I'm not
RM postscript: the tarball is also missing docs/manual/faq/support.html
for whatever reason.
From: Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 5:54 PM
So what is the verdict on the messed up #ifdef in scoreboard.c if .31
goes beta? Are we going to include the fixed
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 12:42 PM
RM postscript: the tarball is also missing docs/manual/faq/support.html
for whatever reason.
Ok... I missed the new schema; this is not a problem.
It would be rather cool, however, to have and index.html
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
RM postscript: the tarball is also missing docs/manual/faq/support.html
for whatever reason.
The httpd_roll_release script actually downloads an SSI parsed copy of the faq,
so it can be served by sites without mod_include enabled. You should see all of
the info
Ryan Bloom wrote:
Once the tarball is rolled, that's it, move on to the next version.
+1 (for Apache 2)
I disagree, strongly. :-) In this case, the tarball was rolled, but it
was rolled incorrectly (my fault for not updating the how_to_release
site). The code was fine, but the
Bill Stoddard wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:45:56PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
httpd-2.0.31 does not build on NetWare because of a screwed up
#ifdef
APR_HAS_SHARED_MEMORY in scoreboard.c/ap_reopen_scoreboard().
The
fix
for this has already been checked in but
Ryan Bloom wrote:
Once the tarball is rolled, that's it, move on to the next
version.
+1 (for Apache 2)
I disagree, strongly. :-) In this case, the tarball was rolled,
but it
was rolled incorrectly (my fault for not updating the how_to_release
site). The code was fine,
From: Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 4:36 PM
From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
My point is that I disagree with that. We have been bumping tags on
files when releasing 2.0 since 2.0.16, and we aren't even talking about
bumping a tag here.
and available on http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2_0_31-alpha.tar.gz
Many thanks to Justin Aaron.
can people do a quick sanity check that the roll is good
TIA
Ian
httpd-2.0.31 does not build on NetWare because of a screwed up #ifdef
APR_HAS_SHARED_MEMORY in scoreboard.c/ap_reopen_scoreboard(). The fix
for this has already been checked in but I'm not going to worry about it
for now as long as 2.0.31 is just an alpha. If you are planning on
releasing .31
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:45:56PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
httpd-2.0.31 does not build on NetWare because of a screwed up #ifdef
APR_HAS_SHARED_MEMORY in scoreboard.c/ap_reopen_scoreboard(). The fix
for this has already been checked in but I'm not going to worry about it
for now as long
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:45:56PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
httpd-2.0.31 does not build on NetWare because of a screwed up #ifdef
APR_HAS_SHARED_MEMORY in scoreboard.c/ap_reopen_scoreboard(). The fix
for this has already been checked in but I'm not going to worry about it
for now as
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 12:39:39PM -0800, Ian Holsman wrote:
and available on http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2_0_31-alpha.tar.gz
One note that Aaron pointed out is that the tarball extracts to
apache_2.0.31 instead of httpd-2_0_31. Ian tarred it up as
apache_2.0.31 instead of
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 01:48:59PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
An alternative is to post the patch in the release notes (it is a very
small patch).
Since it only affects NetWare (how about Win32?), I'd be
comfortable with having it as posted patch for 2.0.31 if it
makes beta. We did this for
Ian Holsman wrote:
and available on http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2_0_31-alpha.tar.gz
Many thanks to Justin Aaron.
can people do a quick sanity check that the roll is good
TIA
Ian
daedalus is unhappy when I run ./config.nice. I intentionally didn't run
./buildconf first so
Bill Stoddard wrote:
We are definately trying to make this a beta. Perhaps Ian can be
pursuaded (with money, food, etc..) to do a reroll,
Once the tarball is rolled, that's it, move on to the next version.
This is a very error prone part of our process. I got around it in 2_0_28 by
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:58:00PM -0500, Greg Ames wrote:
daedalus is unhappy when I run ./config.nice. I intentionally didn't run
./buildconf first so I could test the included configure scripts.
Greg
config.status: creating support/envvars-std
mv: support/envvars-std: set
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:58:00PM -0500, Greg Ames wrote:
daedalus is unhappy when I run ./config.nice. I intentionally didn't run
./buildconf first so I could test the included configure scripts.
Greg
config.status: creating support/envvars-std
mv:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:26:14PM -0800, Ian Holsman wrote:
where to from here?
do we just trash-31 as the tar ball is INVALID ?
do we start this game again with 32?
or should we do a 31.1 ?
I think people have said its okay to reroll if we screw up the
roll. But, I'm not sure.
FWIW, Roy
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:58:00PM -0500, Greg Ames wrote:
daedalus is unhappy when I run ./config.nice. I intentionally
didn't
run
./buildconf first so I could test the included configure scripts.
Greg
config.status: creating support/envvars-std
mv:
why not just reroll as 2.0.31pl1?
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Greg Ames wrote:
Bill Stoddard wrote:
We are definately trying to make this a beta. Perhaps Ian can be
pursuaded (with money, food, etc..) to do a reroll,
Once the tarball is rolled, that's it, move on to the next version.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:58:00PM -0500, Greg Ames wrote:
daedalus is unhappy when I run ./config.nice. I intentionally didn't run
./buildconf first so I could test the included configure scripts.
Greg
config.status: creating support/envvars-std
mv:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 05:37:29PM -0500, Greg Ames wrote:
It works fine when I do ./buildconf first. Jeff stuck his head in here before
he left and said that autoconf 2.52 doesn't work on FreeBSD -- he recognized the
./config.status: 775: Syntax error: done unexpected (expecting ))
I
Greg Ames [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a very error prone part of our process. I got around it in 2_0_28 by
sending preliminary tarballs to people on platforms I knew were problematic,
before making anything public. Madhu told me my first tarball built with
autoconf 1.4.2 didn't work
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All you have to do to roll a release is:
ssh cvs.apache.org
cvs co httpd-2.0
and apr and apr-util I would guess
cp httpd-2.0/build/httpd_roll_release .
./httpd_roll_release TAG_NAME logfile_name user
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All you have to do to roll a release is:
ssh cvs.apache.org
cvs co httpd-2.0
and apr and apr-util I would guess
cp httpd-2.0/build/httpd_roll_release .
./httpd_roll_release TAG_NAME logfile_name user
ok.
I used this method
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Greg Ames [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Madhu told me my first tarball built with
autoconf 1.4.2 didn't work for HP-UX. So I re-rolled on daedalus for most
platforms, and on Linux w/autoconf 1.4.2 for Darwin.
I think Greg mean libtool 1.4.2.
yep...it's been a long
: No such
file or directory
creating os/unix/Makefile
[...]
-Madhu
-Original Message-
From: Greg Ames [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 3:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Greg Ames [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 03:08:19PM -0800, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
wrote:
Hi,
Pending re-rolling of the tar file, here's what I got for the curent
version of httpd-2_0_31-alpha.tar.gz :
creating config_vars.mk
configure: creating ./config.status
creating
All you have to do to roll a release is:
ssh cvs.apache.org
cvs co httpd-2.0
and apr and apr-util I would guess
Nope. The script checks out the source that it will package. The only
reason to checkout the httpd-2.0 repository is to get the
httpd_roll_release script, so that should
So what is the verdict on the messed up #ifdef in scoreboard.c if .31
goes beta? Are we going to include the fixed version or patch it in the
release notes?
Brad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, February 01, 2002 2:55:34 PM
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 01:48:59PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
An
Thanks,
The build looks fine on HPUX (that was the problem with 2.0.28).
-Madhu
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 3:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 03
the NW patch is in there.
the non-crap tarballs are in the /dist directory.
who would have thought making a tar ball would be so hard.
..Ian
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:46:58PM -0800, Ian Holsman wrote:
the NW patch is in there.
the non-crap tarballs are in the /dist directory.
who would have thought making a tar ball would be so hard.
No kidding. It'll be easier next time.
After initially thinking there was a problem with
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 05:37:29PM -0500, Greg Ames wrote:
...
It works fine when I do ./buildconf first. Jeff stuck his head in here before
he left and said that autoconf 2.52 doesn't work on FreeBSD -- he recognized the
./config.status: 775: Syntax error: done unexpected (expecting ))
I
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 05:34:51PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
...
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2_0_31-alpha.tar.gz
Why can't we name our damned tarballs and resulting directories like all
other packages out there?
For example: httpd-2.0.31-alpha.tar.gz
unpacks into:
According to Greg Stein:
Why can't we name our damned tarballs and resulting directories like all
other packages out there?
For example: httpd-2.0.31-alpha.tar.gz
unpacks into: ./httpd-2.0.31-alpha/
+1!
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht - Don't hate yourself in the morning
Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 05:34:51PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
...
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2_0_31-alpha.tar.gz
Why can't we name our damned tarballs and resulting directories like all
other packages out there?
A superstitious behavior involving
Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
According to Greg Stein:
Why can't we name our damned tarballs and resulting directories like all
other packages out there?
For example: httpd-2.0.31-alpha.tar.gz
unpacks into: ./httpd-2.0.31-alpha/
+1!
I just built it with the ./httpd_roll_release script
so if
63 matches
Mail list logo
