Re: [AOLSERVER] Two modules for AOLServer available
On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Scott Goodwin wrote: > it's time to break OpenSSL into its own openssl.so module, and have it If you build OpenSSL as a shared lib, and the build procedures for the AOLserver modules are friendly to that practice, do we really need an OpenSSL module? What would it do? Last time I built nsopenssl.so, I did it that way, and I've had no problems other than that you may have to adjust the LD_LIBRARY_PATH to include the place the OpenSSL shared libraries. Pete.
Re: [AOLSERVER] Two modules for AOLServer available
I have zero experience with shared libs, other than understanding what they're for. Seems like you already have it working this way, so I'll try it out. If you could, please send me any changes you made to the Makefile to do this. Putting openssl.so into AOLserver's /bin directory might eliminate the requirement to update LD_LIBRARY_PATH. We don't use any code that's installed with the OS. All of our production binaries are compiled from scratched into a specific area so we know exactly what's being used, and so an OS upgrade from, say, RH 7.2 to 7.3 doesn't break something for us. /s. On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 08:39:57 -0400, "Peter M. Jansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Scott Goodwin wrote: > > > it's time to break OpenSSL into its own openssl.so module, and have it > > If you build OpenSSL as a shared lib, and the build procedures for > the AOLserver modules are friendly to that practice, do we really need > an > OpenSSL module? What would it do? > > Last time I built nsopenssl.so, I did it that way, and I've had no > problems other than that you may have to adjust the LD_LIBRARY_PATH to > include the place the OpenSSL shared libraries. > > Pete. > -- Scott Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scottg.net
Re: [AOLSERVER] need an openssl.so?
Really, what I'm asking is whether there's any functionality you would associate with an openssl.so module, or if it's just to make sure the library is loaded. If there's no functionality, then the normal shared library facility should be fine. I've used this technique on IRIX, Mac OS X, several versions of Solaris, and a couple of versions of RedHat Linux. Of those, the only one that came with OpenSSL as a part of the OS distribution was Mac OS X. I didn't need any changes to the nsopenssl Makefiles, nor the AOLserver Makefiles. When you build OpenSSL, configure it with "shared" or "threads" and it will build shared libraries. It seems to me that we should be configuring OpenSSL with "threads" anyway, so this shouldn't be a change. Putting the OpenSSL shared libs (libcrypto.so and libssl.so) in the AOLserver bin directory is not enough. The libraries do need to be somewhere the system will search for shared libraries, so you either need to include the directory in which the libraries reside in the LD_LIBRARY_PATH, or provide the directory as a load search hint by adding a "-R" argument to LDFLAGS (assuming your compiler supports "-R"). For example, "-R /usr/local/ssl/lib" might be what you need. I haven't used nsencrypt nor nsimap, so I don't know if the build procedures for them require changes. When you say you don't use any code that's installed with the OS, do you include C runtime libraries with that? On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Scott Goodwin wrote: > I have zero experience with shared libs, other than understanding what > they're for. Seems like you already have it working this way, so I'll > try it out. If you could, please send me any changes you made to the > Makefile to do this. Putting openssl.so into AOLserver's /bin directory > might eliminate the requirement to update LD_LIBRARY_PATH. > > We don't use any code that's installed with the OS. All of our > production binaries are compiled from scratched into a specific area so > we know exactly what's being used, and so an OS upgrade from, say, RH > 7.2 to 7.3 doesn't break something for us. > > /s. > > > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 08:39:57 -0400, "Peter M. Jansson" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Scott Goodwin wrote: > > > > > it's time to break OpenSSL into its own openssl.so module, and have it > > > > If you build OpenSSL as a shared lib, and the build procedures for > > the AOLserver modules are friendly to that practice, do we really need > > an > > OpenSSL module? What would it do? > > > > Last time I built nsopenssl.so, I did it that way, and I've had no > > problems other than that you may have to adjust the LD_LIBRARY_PATH to > > include the place the OpenSSL shared libraries. > > > > Pete. > > > > -- > Scott Goodwin > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scottg.net >
[AOLSERVER] Discussion at OpenACS...
Go to http://openacs.org/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0006Qq&topic_id=11 for discussion on nspostgres, nsora, windows AOLserver and aD AOLserver issues with respect to SF hosting. /s. -- Scott Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scottg.net
Re: [AOLSERVER] need an openssl.so?
Pete, thanks for the info. No functionality would be associated with an openssl.so module, and what you've said below solves the issues I had. /s. On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 12:46:01 -0400, "Peter M. Jansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Really, what I'm asking is whether there's any functionality you would > associate with an openssl.so module, or if it's just to make sure the > library is loaded. If there's no functionality, then the normal shared > library facility should be fine. > > I've used this technique on IRIX, Mac OS X, several versions of > Solaris, > and a couple of versions of RedHat Linux. Of those, the only one that > came with OpenSSL as a part of the OS distribution was Mac OS X. > > I didn't need any changes to the nsopenssl Makefiles, nor the AOLserver > Makefiles. When you build OpenSSL, configure it with "shared" or > "threads" and it will build shared libraries. It seems to me that we > should be configuring OpenSSL with "threads" anyway, so this shouldn't > be > a change. > > Putting the OpenSSL shared libs (libcrypto.so and libssl.so) in the > AOLserver bin directory is not enough. The libraries do need to be > somewhere the system will search for shared libraries, so you either > need > to include the directory in which the libraries reside in the > LD_LIBRARY_PATH, or provide the directory as a load search hint by > adding > a "-R" argument to LDFLAGS (assuming your compiler supports "-R"). For > example, "-R /usr/local/ssl/lib" might be what you need. > > I haven't used nsencrypt nor nsimap, so I don't know if the build > procedures for them require changes. > > When you say you don't use any code that's installed with the OS, do > you > include C runtime libraries with that? > > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Scott Goodwin wrote: > > > I have zero experience with shared libs, other than understanding what > > they're for. Seems like you already have it working this way, so I'll > > try it out. If you could, please send me any changes you made to the > > Makefile to do this. Putting openssl.so into AOLserver's /bin directory > > might eliminate the requirement to update LD_LIBRARY_PATH. > > > > We don't use any code that's installed with the OS. All of our > > production binaries are compiled from scratched into a specific area so > > we know exactly what's being used, and so an OS upgrade from, say, RH > > 7.2 to 7.3 doesn't break something for us. > > > > /s. > > > > > > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 08:39:57 -0400, "Peter M. Jansson" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Scott Goodwin wrote: > > > > > > > it's time to break OpenSSL into its own openssl.so module, and have it > > > > > > If you build OpenSSL as a shared lib, and the build procedures for > > > the AOLserver modules are friendly to that practice, do we really need > > > an > > > OpenSSL module? What would it do? > > > > > > Last time I built nsopenssl.so, I did it that way, and I've had no > > > problems other than that you may have to adjust the LD_LIBRARY_PATH to > > > include the place the OpenSSL shared libraries. > > > > > > Pete. > > > > > > > -- > > Scott Goodwin > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scottg.net > > > -- Scott Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scottg.net
Re: [AOLSERVER] Discussion at OpenACS...
On 2002.09.29, Scott Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Go to > > http://openacs.org/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0006Qq&topic_id=11 > > for discussion on nspostgres, nsora, windows AOLserver and aD AOLserver > issues with respect to SF hosting. Cool, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I just wanted to comment on something Don Bacchus wrote: > [...] > One of our community members has resurrected windows support and quite > a few members of our community are interested in seeing that packaged > and released once AOLserver 4.0 is released. At the moment I can't > imagine that being hosted at AOLserver.com. > [...] > -- Don Baccus, September 29, 2002 I would love to see Win32 support continue for AOLserver. I don't see why Don says "I can't imagine that being hosted at AOLserver.com" -- at least the AOL folks have said that "we simply can't maintain Win32 support any longer" ... they never said "we no longer want Win32 support for AOLserver." If the community will work on Win32 support and do it in such a way that it doesn't negatively impact the AOLserver core, I am convinced that the AOL core team will accept the necessary changes to make it happen. I'd volunteer to be the coordinator of the patching effort if that would help. -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)
Re: [AOLSERVER] Discussion at OpenACS...
Don probably meant that he didn't see the AOL dev team merging in the changes for Win32 and aD stuff, especially if it had any effect on adding complexity or reducing performance. Having separate "modules" for these two efforts, at least to begin with, would solve that problem while still centralizing the code. What I'd suggest is that there be two versions imported as modules -- one for windows development and one with the aD stuff. I also suggest that the import be made from the current AOLserver 3.5.0 tree and/or 4.x tree, and then be patched to bring in the differences cleanly. It might be easier to track with AOLserver core this way. Alternatively, the current aD and any current Win32 copies could be imported and then brought to a state where they are the same as the AOLserver core, with the exception of the differences (duh). I like the AOLserver core being "clean" of Win32 code. Please don't anyone take offense here, as it's just my personal opinion: it makes it less complicated, and therefore easier for myself and others to work on. Having a tracked copy that incorporates revisions to make it run natively on windows, and a separate tracked version that incorporates changes that the community wants to see would allow us to experiment with AOLserver core safely. The AOL dev team could then integrate the improvements that make sense into the core, and everyone wins. /s. On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:37:50 -0400, "Dossy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On 2002.09.29, Scott Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Go to > > > > http://openacs.org/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0006Qq&topic_id=11 > > > > for discussion on nspostgres, nsora, windows AOLserver and aD AOLserver > > issues with respect to SF hosting. > > Cool, thanks for bringing this to our attention. > > I just wanted to comment on something Don Bacchus wrote: > > > [...] > > One of our community members has resurrected windows support and quite > > a few members of our community are interested in seeing that packaged > > and released once AOLserver 4.0 is released. At the moment I can't > > imagine that being hosted at AOLserver.com. > > [...] > > -- Don Baccus, September 29, 2002 > > I would love to see Win32 support continue for AOLserver. I don't see > why Don says "I can't imagine that being hosted at AOLserver.com" -- > at least the AOL folks have said that "we simply can't maintain Win32 > support any longer" ... they never said "we no longer want Win32 > support > for AOLserver." > > If the community will work on Win32 support and do it in such a way > that > it doesn't negatively impact the AOLserver core, I am convinced that > the > AOL core team will accept the necessary changes to make it happen. I'd > volunteer to be the coordinator of the patching effort if that would > help. > > -- Dossy > > -- > Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ > "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own > folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70) > -- Scott Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scottg.net
[AOLSERVER] More updates
Don Baccus has been added to the committer's list and will be focusing on the nspostgres module. Jeff Davis has stepped up to work on nsora. http://openacs.org/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0006Qq&topic_id=OpenACS&topic=11 /s. -- Scott Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scottg.net
[AOLSERVER] [ANNOUNCE] nscache 1.3 and 1.4 released.
nscache 1.3 is Rob Mayoff's original module. nscache 1.4 has the 'incr' command added, courtesy of Vlad Seryakov. Both are now available as downloads from the AOLserver SourceForge Files area. /s. -- Scott Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scottg.net
[AOLSERVER] [ANNOUNCE] Release of nssha1-0.1
I've imported and created a File release of nssha1, version 0.1. I'll promote it to version 1.0 when I or someone else can confirm that it works properly with AOLserver. /s. -- Scott Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scottg.net
[AOLSERVER] Oracle Driver
I now have Oracle Driver 2.3 and 2.5. Anyone who has or knows of Oracle Driver versions of any kind, please send me the tarball and/or send me a direct URL to the download for what you find. I and/or Jeff will open them up and try to determine from file dates and what's in READMEs what order we need to integrate them. Please copy Jeff Davis (he and I are cc'd on this message, so Reply-All, REMOVE the AOLserver Discussion address, and attach any files). thanks, /s. -- Scott Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scottg.net
Re: [AOLSERVER] Oracle Driver
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 02:01:55AM +, Scott Goodwin wrote: > I now have Oracle Driver 2.3 and 2.5. Scott, that doesn't sound right. The latest Oracle driver released by aD was 2.6, and I think that's what OpenACS uses. Do you have the version that aD shipped with their AOLserver 3.3+ad13 release? That was their last release of the Oracle driver. However, it's README file was out of date and did still mention "release 2.4" in the text. It's ora8.c has: /* $Id: ora8.c,v 1.59 2001/06/11 20:11:14 mayoff Exp $ */ I can send you copy of aolserver-src-v33+ad13.tar.gz if you don't have it, or should be able to grab it from here: http://eveander.com/arsdigita/acs-repository/aolserver-src But I suspect you may already have it, and it's just version number confusion going on... -- Andrew Piskorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.piskorski.com
