Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 11:09 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > Did that, but I still need to fix the failing tests before you > bother... > > Maybe Saturday. No rush. -- Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Adam Prime wrote: My understanding of =over , which seems to be confirmed by perldoc perlpod was that is the indent level, so i'm not sure why you would want to bump it. You sir are correct. Apparently back in the day I misread and learned that wrongly. Fixed in trunk and v2_10. -- 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?
Bojan Smojver wrote: On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 01:40 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: Committed revision 721096. Backported to branches/2_10 721099. Let me know when you backport all the stuff you wanted to get from the trunk and I'll roll RC2. Did that, but I still need to fix the failing tests before you bother... Maybe Saturday. -- 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?
Philip M. Gollucci wrote: Adam Prime wrote: Bojan Smojver wrote: http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__xs__request.html Does the attached patch work? Committed revision 721096. Backported to branches/2_10 721099. you forgot to bump the =over value :) My understanding of =over , which seems to be confirmed by perldoc perlpod was that is the indent level, so i'm not sure why you would want to bump it. Maybe i'm misunderstanding what you meant though. Adam
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 01:40 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > Committed revision 721096. > Backported to branches/2_10 721099. Let me know when you backport all the stuff you wanted to get from the trunk and I'll roll RC2. -- Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Adam Prime wrote: Bojan Smojver wrote: http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__xs__request.html Does the attached patch work? Committed revision 721096. Backported to branches/2_10 721099. you forgot to bump the =over value :) -- 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?
Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 09:10 -0500, Adam Prime wrote: > >> I was reminded of a documentation omission by an email on the mod_perl >> list this morning. Can something be added into the porting warnings here: >> >> http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__xs__request.html >> >> mentioning that my @params = $r->param() no long returns a unique list >> of the params. IE that ?a=b&a=c will return (a, a), not (a), which is >> how it worked in libapreq1. >> > > Sure. Do you have a patch? > > Does the attached patch work? Adam Index: glue/perl/lib/Apache2/Request.pm === --- glue/perl/lib/Apache2/Request.pm(revision 721076) +++ glue/perl/lib/Apache2/Request.pm(working copy) @@ -417,6 +417,10 @@ =item * C includes the functionality of C and C, so they are now deprecated and may be removed from a future 2.X release. +=item * C called in a list context no longer returns a unique list of +paramaters. The returned list contains multiple instances of the +parameter name for multivalued fields. + =back
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 09:10 -0500, Adam Prime wrote: > I was reminded of a documentation omission by an email on the mod_perl > list this morning. Can something be added into the porting warnings here: > > http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__xs__request.html > > mentioning that my @params = $r->param() no long returns a unique list > of the params. IE that ?a=b&a=c will return (a, a), not (a), which is > how it worked in libapreq1. Sure. Do you have a patch? -- Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:56 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Probably a good thing, I'm not sure what the differences are.
> [are all my solaris fixes on the 2_10 branch ?]
Here you go...
--
Bojan
diff -rauN --exclude=.svn apreq-2.10/CHANGES apreq/CHANGES
--- apreq-2.10/CHANGES 2008-11-11 14:59:51.0 +1100
+++ apreq/CHANGES 2008-11-14 13:27:55.0 +1100
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
//! brief List of major changes.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] v2_10 Changes with libapreq2-2.10 (released Nov 11, 2008)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] v2_10 Changes with libapreq2-2.10 (under developement)
- Perl Glue Build [Philip M. Gollucci]
config.status format changed format yet again in autoconf 2.62+.
diff -rauN --exclude=.svn apreq-2.10/include/apreq_version.h apreq/include/apreq_version.h
--- apreq-2.10/include/apreq_version.h 2008-06-05 10:40:24.0 +1000
+++ apreq/include/apreq_version.h 2008-11-14 13:28:01.0 +1100
@@ -68,7 +68,8 @@
* This symbol is defined for internal, "development" copies of libapreq.
* This symbol will be \#undef'd for releases.
*/
-#undef APREQ_IS_DEV_VERSION
+#define APREQ_IS_DEV_VERSION
+
/** The formatted string of libapreq's version */
#define APREQ_VERSION_STRING \
diff -rauN --exclude=.svn apreq-2.10/module/t/TEST.PL apreq/module/t/TEST.PL
--- apreq-2.10/module/t/TEST.PL 2008-06-05 10:40:26.0 +1000
+++ apreq/module/t/TEST.PL 2008-11-14 13:28:05.0 +1100
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@
if (WIN32) {
require File::Spec;
-my @goners = map {$name . '.' . $_} qw(exp ilk lib pdb so lo);
+my @goners = map {$name . '.' . $_} qw(exp ilk lib pdb so lo so.manifest);
my $libs = join ' ',
(map {'-l' . File::Spec->catfile($mod_apreq2_dir, $_)}
qw(libapreq2.lib mod_apreq2.lib));
diff -rauN --exclude=.svn apreq-2.10/STATUS apreq/STATUS
--- apreq-2.10/STATUS 2008-11-11 14:59:02.0 +1100
+++ apreq/STATUS 2008-11-14 13:27:55.0 +1100
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
/** @page apreq_status STATUS
-2.10 released 11-Nov-08
+2.10 under developement
Contributors looking for a mission:
diff -rauN --exclude=.svn apreq-2.10/win32/Configure.pl apreq/win32/Configure.pl
--- apreq-2.10/win32/Configure.pl 2008-06-05 10:40:29.0 +1000
+++ apreq/win32/Configure.pl 2008-11-14 13:29:53.0 +1100
@@ -37,12 +37,16 @@
generate_tests($apreq_home, [EMAIL PROTECTED]);
my %apr_libs;
-my %map = (apr => 'libapr.lib', apu => 'libaprutil.lib');
+my $prog = apache_prog_name($apache);
+my @httpd_ver = httpd_version($prog);
my $devnull = devnull();
+my %map = (
+apr => $httpd_ver[1] == 2 ? 'libapr-1.lib' : 'libapr.lib',
+apu => $httpd_ver[1] == 2 ? 'libaprutil-1.lib' : 'libaprutil.lib'
+);
-my $prog = apache_prog_name($apache);
foreach my $what (qw(apr apu)) {
-my $ap = ($prog eq 'httpd.exe') ?
+my $ap = ($httpd_ver[1] == 2) ?
"$what-1-config.bat" : "$what-config.bat";
my $cfg = catfile $apache, 'bin', $ap;
my $lib;
@@ -110,6 +114,8 @@
$(RM_F) *.pch *.exe *.exp *.lib *.pdb *.ilk *.idb *.so *.dll *.obj *.manifest
cd $(TDIR)
$(RM_F) *.pch *.exe *.exp *.lib *.pdb *.ilk *.idb *.so *.dll *.obj *.manifest
+cd $(APREQ_HOME)\module\t\c-modules
+$(MAKE) clean
cd $(APREQ_HOME)
!IF EXIST("$(PERLGLUE)\Makefile")
cd $(PERLGLUE)
@@ -308,6 +314,14 @@
return;
}
+sub httpd_version {
+my $prog = shift;
+my $vers = qx{$prog -v};
+die qq{Could not parse "$apache" version}
+unless $vers =~ m!Apache/2.(\d).(\d)!;
+return (2, $1, $2);
+}
+
sub generate_defs {
my $preamble =<<'END';
LIBRARY
@@ -411,8 +425,9 @@
my $apache = shift;
my $prog;
for my $trial(qw(Apache.exe httpd.exe)) {
-next unless -e catfile($apache, 'bin', $trial);
-$prog = $trial;
+my $path = catfile($apache, 'bin', $trial);
+next unless -e $path;
+$prog = $path;
last;
}
die "Could not determine the Apache2 binary name" unless $prog;
diff -rauN --exclude=.svn apreq-2.10/win32/libapreq2.mak apreq/win32/libapreq2.mak
--- apreq-2.10/win32/libapreq2.mak 2008-06-05 10:40:29.0 +1000
+++ apreq/win32/libapreq2.mak 2008-11-14 13:28:13.0 +1100
@@ -68,9 +68,7 @@
"$(INTDIR)\module_custom.obj" \
"$(INTDIR)\module_cgi.obj" \
"$(INTDIR)\error.obj" \
- "$(INTDIR)\libapreq.res \
- "$(APR_LIB)" \
- "$(APU_LIB)"
+ "$(INTDIR)\libapreq.res"
!IF "$(CFG)" == "libapreq2 - Win32 Release"
@@ -87,7 +85,7 @@
BSC32_FLAGS=/nologo /o"$(OUTDIR)\libapreq2.bsc"
LINK32=link.exe
MANIFEST=$(OUTDIR)\libapreq2.dll.manifest
-LINK32_FLAGS=kernel32.lib user32.lib gdi32.lib winspool.lib comdlg32.lib advapi32.lib shell32.lib ole32.lib oleaut32.lib uuid.lib odbc32.lib odbccp32.lib /nologo /dll /incremental:no /machine:I386 /out:"$(OUTDIR)\libapreq2.dll" /implib:"$(OUTDIR)\libapreq2.lib"
+LINK32_FLAGS="$(APR_LIB)" "$(APU_LIB)" kernel32.lib user32.lib gdi32.lib winspool.lib comdlg32.lib
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Yes, testers await. On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Philip M. Gollucci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bojan Smojver wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 23:08 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: >> >>> Apache-Test definitely jumps through hoops for SSL. >>> >>> Are your perl SSL CPANs up-to-date ? >> >> Whatever Fedora 9 has, I have. Whether that's most up to date, I don't >> know. >> >> I think I should just put out an RC tarball and let people test. Then >> we'll know what's going on. >> > go for it. > > -- > > 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?
Bojan Smojver wrote: On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 23:08 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: Apache-Test definitely jumps through hoops for SSL. Are your perl SSL CPANs up-to-date ? Whatever Fedora 9 has, I have. Whether that's most up to date, I don't know. I think I should just put out an RC tarball and let people test. Then we'll know what's going on. go for it. -- 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 Wed, 2008-11-12 at 23:08 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > Apache-Test definitely jumps through hoops for SSL. > > Are your perl SSL CPANs up-to-date ? Whatever Fedora 9 has, I have. Whether that's most up to date, I don't know. I think I should just put out an RC tarball and let people test. Then we'll know what's going on. -- Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Bojan Smojver wrote: On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 20:31 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: This will require further debugging... After employing mod_dumpio, it seems that Apache actually outputs everything out, even over SSL. I have no idea how and why it doesn't show up in the client (i.e. as reported by request.t). Maybe something to do with the Perl test suite? Opinions? Apache-Test definitely jumps through hoops for SSL. Are your perl SSL CPANs up-to-date ? -- 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 Wed, 2008-11-12 at 20:31 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: > This will require further debugging... After employing mod_dumpio, it seems that Apache actually outputs everything out, even over SSL. I have no idea how and why it doesn't show up in the client (i.e. as reported by request.t). Maybe something to do with the Perl test suite? Opinions? -- Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 10:36 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: > We should find out what's going on with this before the release. What I've discovered so far is that mod_apreq_output_filter_test.c gets the correctly parsed content from apreq machinery and puts all that in the brigade. But, upon ap_pass_brigade(f->next,bb) call, some of the content is mysteriously dropped when the connection over SSL. This will require further debugging... -- Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 09:38 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: > These two tests fail when SSL is enabled. Indeed, things get chopped off. I'm attaching an example from test 34. The files 1.e and 1.r are expected/received content, respectively, that the test sees over regular HTTP. The files 2.e and 2.r are the same over HTTPS. You'll notice immediately that 2.r is significantly smaller than 2.e. Similarly, in test 36 things get chopped off again. We should find out what's going on with this before the release. -- Bojan tests.tar.bz2 Description: application/bzip-compressed-tar
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 18:41 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: > BTW, 2.08 and 2.09-rc2 fail exactly the same on my box. Something must > be screwed in my setup... When I run the tests against vanilla httpd (instead of Fedora supplied one), the number of tests drops to 82 (as opposed to 121 with Fedora supplied httpd) and all those pass. So, there must be some functionality that I didn't compile into vanilla httpd that is screwing up the tests. -- Bojan
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: 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: 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
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
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Adam Prime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apparently i suck at actually sending mail to the list. I blame gmail.
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Adam Prime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Given it's a request to the whole development group, could you resend to
>>> the list so that other developer see it too?
>>>
>>> It would also be useful to have a backtrace from GDB when this happens.
>>
>> If someone can point my to instructions on how to generate a
>> backtrace, i'll do what i can. It's not something i have any
>> experience with though.
>>
>> I've fiddled with this a little further. If you take the following handler:
>>
>> package Kabob::Seg;
>>
>> use Apache2::Request;
>>
>> sub handler {
>>my $req = Apache2::Request->new($r);
>>$r->content_type('text/plain');
>>
>>$r->print('hi');
>>
>>return Apache2::Const::OK;
>> }
>>
>> 1;
>>
>> and run it under SetHandler perl-script, it will segfault. If you run
>> it under SetHandler modperl, then you get this in your error_log (and
>> a 500):
>>
>> [Mon Jul 14 00:28:37 2008] [error] [client 127.0.0.1] Apache2->handle
>> called without setting Apache2->request! at
>> /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux/Apache2/Request.pm line
>> 15.\n
>>
>> I have no idea what the difference is.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>
theoretically, this is a backtrace from this.
(gdb) set args -f /www/conf/httpd.conf -DBackEnd -X
(gdb) r
Starting program: /usr/local/prefork/bin/httpd -f /www/conf/httpd.conf
-DBackEnd -X
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x2b1e9b043ee7 in XS_APR__Request__Apache2_handle ()
from
/usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux/auto/APR/Request/Apache2/Apache2.so
(gdb) bt
#0 0x2b1e9b043ee7 in XS_APR__Request__Apache2_handle ()
from
/usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux/auto/APR/Request/Apache2/Apache2.so
#1 0x2b1e98ef3ac9 in Perl_pp_entersub () from /usr/lib/libperl.so.1
#2 0x2b1e98ef226a in Perl_runops_standard () from /usr/lib/libperl.so.1
#3 0x2b1e98ea2367 in Perl_call_sv () from /usr/lib/libperl.so.1
#4 0x2b1e98c32710 in modperl_callback () from
/usr/local/prefork/modules/mod_perl.so
#5 0x2b1e98c32c5d in modperl_callback_run_handlers () from
/usr/local/prefork/modules/mod_perl.so
#6 0x2b1e98c3300f in modperl_callback_per_dir () from
/usr/local/prefork/modules/mod_perl.so
#7 0x2b1e98c2f0f0 in modperl_response_handler_run () from
/usr/local/prefork/modules/mod_perl.so
#8 0x2b1e98c2f26e in modperl_response_handler_cgi () from
/usr/local/prefork/modules/mod_perl.so
#9 0x00437af9 in ap_run_handler (r=0x853788) at config.c:157
#10 0x0043abdc in ap_invoke_handler (r=0x853788) at config.c:372
#11 0x0044fc38 in ap_process_request (r=0x853788) at http_request.c:258
#12 0x0044d0dc in ap_process_http_connection (c=0x84f958) at
http_core.c:190
#13 0x0043e791 in ap_run_process_connection (c=0x84f958) at
connection.c:43
#14 0x00461801 in child_main (child_num_arg=) at prefork.c:640
#15 0x004619e8 in make_child (s=0x69d150, slot=0) at prefork.c:680
#16 0x00462478 in ap_mpm_run (_pconf=,
plog=,
s=0x69d150) at prefork.c:956
#17 0x00425a37 in main (argc=5, argv=0x7fff1363a5d8) at main.c:730
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Apparently i suck at actually sending mail to the list. I blame gmail.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Adam Prime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Given it's a request to the whole development group, could you resend to
>> the list so that other developer see it too?
>>
>> It would also be useful to have a backtrace from GDB when this happens.
>
> If someone can point my to instructions on how to generate a
> backtrace, i'll do what i can. It's not something i have any
> experience with though.
>
> I've fiddled with this a little further. If you take the following handler:
>
> package Kabob::Seg;
>
> use Apache2::Request;
>
> sub handler {
>my $req = Apache2::Request->new($r);
>$r->content_type('text/plain');
>
>$r->print('hi');
>
>return Apache2::Const::OK;
> }
>
> 1;
>
> and run it under SetHandler perl-script, it will segfault. If you run
> it under SetHandler modperl, then you get this in your error_log (and
> a 500):
>
> [Mon Jul 14 00:28:37 2008] [error] [client 127.0.0.1] Apache2->handle
> called without setting Apache2->request! at
> /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux/Apache2/Request.pm line
> 15.\n
>
> I have no idea what the difference is.
>
> Adam
>
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Bojan Smojver wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 18:46 +0300, Eli Marmor wrote: > > > DON'T FORGET TO MERGE THE ENHANCED-CGI !!! > > Do you have a link? http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/apreq/branches/enhanced-cgi/ -- Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED] CEO, Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd. __ Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St. Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004 Mobile: +972-50-5237338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Eli Marmor wrote: Joe Schaefer wrote: --- On Thu, 7/10/08, Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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... Sounds good. AIUI Issac was going to RM but had difficulty getting the docs to generate. Are you willing to give it a shot? [Sorry for the shouting letters:] DON'T FORGET TO MERGE THE ENHANCED-CGI !!! [Sorry also if it was already done...] AFAIK, it was not. I'm out of town this weekend, but I'll give it a look monday. joes, I seem to remember something about and API issue with that ? At the least, I can post a diff for review. -- Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) o:703.549.2050x206 Senior System Admin - Riderway, Inc. http://riderway.com / 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?
what is required to run the perl test? thanks dave viner On Jul 11, 2008, at 12:54 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote: On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 18:09 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote: Are you willing to give it a shot? I can give it a try, but I have to warn that my Perl skills are non-existent. How much of that is involved in the release? -- Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 18:46 +0300, Eli Marmor wrote: > DON'T FORGET TO MERGE THE ENHANCED-CGI !!! Do you have a link? -- Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Joe Schaefer wrote: > > --- On Thu, 7/10/08, Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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... > > Sounds good. AIUI Issac was going to RM but had difficulty getting > the docs to generate. Are you willing to give it a shot? [Sorry for the shouting letters:] DON'T FORGET TO MERGE THE ENHANCED-CGI !!! [Sorry also if it was already done...] -- Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED] CEO, Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd. __ Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St. Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004 Mobile: +972-50-5237338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 18:09 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote: > Are you willing to give it a shot? I can give it a try, but I have to warn that my Perl skills are non-existent. How much of that is involved in the release? -- Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Joe Schaefer wrote: --- On Thu, 7/10/08, Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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... Sounds good. AIUI Issac was going to RM but had difficulty getting the docs to generate. Are you willing to give it a shot? I was actually waiting on Issac as well. We need to do 1.34 too. Anyone tested perl 5.10 ? I can jump on it next week, I think, if neither Bojan or Isaac prefer to do it. -- Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) o:703.549.2050x206 Senior System Admin - Riderway, Inc. http://riderway.com / 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 Thu, 7/10/08, Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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... Sounds good. AIUI Issac was going to RM but had difficulty getting the docs to generate. Are you willing to give it a shot?
Should we release 2.10?
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... -- Bojan
