Re: Should we release 2.10?
I want to finish with the 1.3 release and then I can try to take a look Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 15:54 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: >> On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: >> >>> Is that with >>> $ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1 >> Fails in exactly the same way as make release_test. > > BTW, 2.08 and 2.09-rc2 fail exactly the same on my box. Something must > be screwed in my setup... >
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 15:54 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > > > Is that with > > $ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1 > > Fails in exactly the same way as make release_test. BTW, 2.08 and 2.09-rc2 fail exactly the same on my box. Something must be screwed in my setup... -- Bojan
Re: libapreq-1.34 (RC) issues
Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > Issac Goldstand wrote: >> Request.xs: In function `upload_hook': >> Request.xs:250: error: syntax error before "fwrite" >> make[1]: *** [Request.o] Error 1 >> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/issac/asf/svn/apreq1/Request' >> make: *** [subdirs] Error 2 > > IS your perl using stdio or perlio ? perl -V says useperlio=define d_sfio=undef I *think* I also tried a stdio, but don't recall. Issac
Re: libapreq-1.34 (RC) issues
Issac Goldstand wrote: Request.xs: In function `upload_hook': Request.xs:250: error: syntax error before "fwrite" make[1]: *** [Request.o] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/issac/asf/svn/apreq1/Request' make: *** [subdirs] Error 2 IS your perl using stdio or perlio ? -- Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) c: 703.336.9354 Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com 1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C Work like you don't need the money, love like you'll never get hurt, and dance like nobody's watching.
libapreq-1.34 (RC) issues
(resending to apreq-dev as my mail server is acting up and gmail's giving me a different FROM address) Here's the error I'm seeing - perl 5.6.2, apache 1.3.41, mp 1.30 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/asf/svn/apreq1$ make cp libapreq.pod blib/lib/libapreq.pod cp lib/Apache/libapreq.pm blib/lib/Apache/libapreq.pm make[1]: Entering directory `/home/issac/asf/svn/apreq1/c' cc -c -I/home/issac/asf/perl56/lib/site_perl/5.6.2/i686-linux-thread-multi-ld/auto/Apache/include -I/home/issac/asf/perl56/lib/site_perl/5.6.2/i686-linux-thread-multi-ld/auto/Apache/include/modules/perl -I/home/issac/asf/apache13/include -I/home/issac/asf/apache13/include -D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE -fno-strict-aliasing -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -O3 -DVERSION=\"\" -DXS_VERSION=\"\" -fpic "-I/home/issac/asf/perl56/lib/5.6.2/i686-linux-thread-multi-ld/CORE" apache_request.c cc -c -I/home/issac/asf/perl56/lib/site_perl/5.6.2/i686-linux-thread-multi-ld/auto/Apache/include -I/home/issac/asf/perl56/lib/site_perl/5.6.2/i686-linux-thread-multi-ld/auto/Apache/include/modules/perl -I/home/issac/asf/apache13/include -I/home/issac/asf/apache13/include -D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE -fno-strict-aliasing -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -O3 -DVERSION=\"\" -DXS_VERSION=\"\" -fpic "-I/home/issac/asf/perl56/lib/5.6.2/i686-linux-thread-multi-ld/CORE" apache_cookie.c cc -c -I/home/issac/asf/perl56/lib/site_perl/5.6.2/i686-linux-thread-multi-ld/auto/Apache/include -I/home/issac/asf/perl56/lib/site_perl/5.6.2/i686-linux-thread-multi-ld/auto/Apache/include/modules/perl -I/home/issac/asf/apache13/include -I/home/issac/asf/apache13/include -D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE -fno-strict-aliasing -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -O3 -DVERSION=\"\" -DXS_VERSION=\"\" -fpic "-I/home/issac/asf/perl56/lib/5.6.2/i686-linux-thread-multi-ld/CORE" apache_multipart_buffer.c rm -rf ../blib/arch/auto/libapreq/libapreq.a /usr/bin/ar cr ../blib/arch/auto/libapreq/libapreq.a apache_request.o apache_cookie.o apache_multipart_buffer.o && : ../blib/arch/auto/libapreq/libapreq.a chmod 755 ../blib/arch/auto/libapreq/libapreq.a cp apache_cookie.h ../blib/arch/auto/libapreq/include/apache_cookie.h cp apache_multipart_buffer.h ../blib/arch/auto/libapreq/include/apache_multipart_buffer.h cp apache_request.h ../blib/arch/auto/libapreq/include/apache_request.h make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/issac/asf/svn/apreq1/c' make[1]: Entering directory `/home/issac/asf/svn/apreq1/Request' cp Request.pm ../blib/lib/Apache/Request.pm /home/issac/asf/perl56/bin/perl /home/issac/asf/perl56/lib/5.6.2/ExtUtils/xsubpp -typemap /home/issac/asf/perl56/lib/5.6.2/ExtUtils/typemap -typemap /home/issac/asf/perl56/lib/site_perl/5.6.2/i686-linux-thread-multi-ld/auto/Apache/typemap Request.xs > Request.xsc && mv Request.xsc Request.c cc -c -I../c -I/home/issac/asf/perl56/lib/site_perl/5.6.2/i686-linux-thread-multi-ld/auto/Apache/include -I/home/issac/asf/perl56/lib/site_perl/5.6.2/i686-linux-thread-multi-ld/auto/Apache/include/modules/perl -I/home/issac/asf/apache13/include -I/home/issac/asf/apache13/include -D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE -fno-strict-aliasing -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -O3 -DVERSION=\"1.34\" -DXS_VERSION=\"1.34\" -fpic "-I/home/issac/asf/perl56/lib/5.6.2/i686-linux-thread-multi-ld/CORE" Request.c Request.xs: In function `upload_hook': Request.xs:250: error: syntax error before "fwrite" make[1]: *** [Request.o] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/issac/asf/svn/apreq1/Request' make: *** [subdirs] Error 2 Now, the funny thing is that I'm getting this on apreq-1.33 (release), too, so I think it's something somewhere in the external libraries (perl/XS, apache, mp) that's made the issue, not our code. CC-ing the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list in case someone there has insight. Issac
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:02 +0200, Issac Goldstand wrote: > I'm gonna play with my version too. I'll shout if I get something > working (and you do the same?) OK. -- Bojan
Re: svn commit: r712936 - in /httpd/apreq/trunk: CHANGES STATUS
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 07:51 +0200, Issac Goldstand wrote: > Whoa > -0.9 > > Update release info *after* the RCs pass muster. The release only > happens after the votes - I'm pretty sure that that's in the RELEASE > file (otherwise 1.34 would have a release date of 2006 ;-p) OOPS, sorry. -- Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > Is that with > $ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1 Fails in exactly the same way as make release_test. -- Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Bojan Smojver wrote: On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: Is that with $ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1 I actually did "make release_test", as per instructions on the release page. Thats a convience target for when everything goes okay. Since it didn't run the make test TEST_VERBOSE=1 by hand. (defined in Makefile.am) -- Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) c: 703.336.9354 Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com 1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C Work like you don't need the money, love like you'll never get hurt, and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > Is that with > $ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1 I actually did "make release_test", as per instructions on the release page. -- Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Bojan Smojver wrote: On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:56 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: [are all my solaris fixes on the 2_10 branch ?] Not sure. What should I be looking for? I'm compiling things now, I'll take a look in few. Is that with $ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1 BTW, I'm getting test failures: - t/requestNOK 34/36# Failed test 34 in t/request.t at line 93 fail #2 # Failed test 36 in t/request.t at line 118 fail #2 t/requestFAILED tests 34, 36 Failed 2/36 tests, 94.44% okay -- Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) c: 703.336.9354 Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com 1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C Work like you don't need the money, love like you'll never get hurt, and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:56 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> [are all my solaris fixes on the 2_10 branch ?]
Not sure. What should I be looking for?
BTW, I'm getting test failures:
-
t/requestNOK 34/36# Failed test 34 in t/request.t at line 93
fail #2
# Failed test 36 in t/request.t at line 118 fail #2
t/requestFAILED tests 34,
36
Failed 2/36 tests, 94.44% okay
-
This is the code:
-
ok t_cmp(filter_content POST_BODY("/index.html?test=16", content =>
"post+data=foo;more=$filler;test=output+filter+POST"),
< 16
BODY:
\tpost data => foo
\tmore => $filler
\ttest => output filter POST
EOT
"output filter POST");
-
and
-
ok t_cmp($body, $index_html . < quux
BODY:
\tquux => $filler
\tlocation => /index.html?foo=quux
\tfoo => $filler
EOT
-
Any ideas?
--
Bojan
[Fwd: RPM Build error: File not found: /usr/local/apr-util-httpd/lib/libexpat.a]
This is pretty much dead, so over to apreq-dev.
--
Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) c: 703.336.9354
Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net
Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
--- Begin Message ---
Hi All,
I have posted this to users list, but thought packagers list is more
appropriate, so re-posting.
I am trying to build a rpm from Apache 2.2.9 source and encountering the error:
error: File not found:
/home/vjkumar/apachews/apache_new/dist/BUILD/apache-root/usr/local/apr-util-httpd/lib/libexpat.a
RPM build errors:
File not found:
/home/vjkumar/apachews/apache_new/dist/BUILD/apache-root/usr/local/apr-util-httpd/lib/libexpat.a
make: *** [rpm] Error 1
The make for httpd-2.2.9/srclib/apr, httpd-2.2.9/srclib/apr-util
and httpd-2.2.9/ are successful.
My rpmbuild command in Makefile is
rpmbuild --define "_topdir ${RPM_TOP_DIR}" \
--bb ${PACKAGE_NAME}.spec
Thanking you in advance
~VJ
--- End Message ---
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Bojan Smojver wrote: On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:52 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: If I can help with the 2.10 let me know, I was probably the last one to muck with it for 2.08 and 2.09. OK, I'll holler if I get stuck. BTW, I will not be merging anything into the branch, but roll it as is. Probably a good thing, I'm not sure what the differences are. [are all my solaris fixes on the 2_10 branch ?] -- Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) c: 703.336.9354 Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com 1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C Work like you don't need the money, love like you'll never get hurt, and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:52 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > If I can help with the 2.10 let me know, I was probably the last one to > muck with it for 2.08 and 2.09. OK, I'll holler if I get stuck. BTW, I will not be merging anything into the branch, but roll it as is. -- Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Bojan Smojver wrote: On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:45 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: did you see the [EMAIL PROTECTED] post ? No, not really. I don't normally follow that list, as my Perl really, really sucks (did I mention my Perl really sucks? ;-)). If you want to volunteer RM for one of them, I'll take the other. I use 2.x, so I can volunteer for that. Have at it, libapreq 1.34 I believe is ready for RC[34] I'll attemtp to roll that nowish. If I can help with the 2.10 let me know, I was probably the last one to muck with it for 2.08 and 2.09. -- Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) c: 703.336.9354 Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com 1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C Work like you don't need the money, love like you'll never get hurt, and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:45 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > did you see the [EMAIL PROTECTED] post ? No, not really. I don't normally follow that list, as my Perl really, really sucks (did I mention my Perl really sucks? ;-)). > If you want to volunteer RM for one of them, I'll take the other. I use 2.x, so I can volunteer for that. -- Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Bojan Smojver wrote: On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 10:44 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we roll this? It's been a long time since the last stable release, I think we should go ahead and get something out the door... Just another ping on this. There was talk of merging new features before the release and of people accessing apreq via Perl seeing segfaults. Anyone has an opinion on this? PS. These are not things that I use. did you see the [EMAIL PROTECTED] post ? I'd like to pick this up again. _STRONG_ +1 to release 1.34 and 2.10 If you want to volunteer RM for one of them, I'll take the other. I've got some time between now and thanks giving. -- Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) c: 703.336.9354 Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com 1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C Work like you don't need the money, love like you'll never get hurt, and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 10:44 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: > Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we roll this? > It's been a long time since the last stable release, I think we should > go ahead and get something out the door... Just another ping on this. There was talk of merging new features before the release and of people accessing apreq via Perl seeing segfaults. Anyone has an opinion on this? PS. These are not things that I use. -- Bojan
