Attn: sf Re: svn commit: r942899 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS

[Gregg L. Smith]

Hi Stefan,

Sorry I have not gotten back on this till now. Life jumped in the way 
and then I had forgotten about it.


Your fixed patch builds with 0 errors 0 warnings, module loads and time 
will tell how it works.


Thanks,
Gregg


Gregg L. Smith wrote:

Hi Stefan,

WRT Windows,

E:\build\httpd-2.2.x-dev\modules\filters\mod_reqtimeout.c(154) : error 
C2065: 'core_module' : undeclared identifier
E:\build\httpd-2.2.x-dev\modules\filters\mod_reqtimeout.c(154) : error 
C2223: left of '->module_index' must point to struct/union


s...@apache.org wrote:

Author: sf
Date: Mon May 10 20:54:05 2010
New Revision: 942899

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS?rev=942899&r1=942898&r2=942899&view=diff 

== 


--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS Mon May 10 20:54:05 2010
@@ -151,6 +151,27 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
 2.2.x patch: http://people.apache.org/~sf/log_cookie_28037.diff
 +1: sf
 
+  * mod_req-timeout/core: Backport bugfixes from trunk up to r935339:
+2.2.x patch: 
http://people.apache.org/~sf/mod_reqtimeout_up_to_r935339.diff
+sf: It would be nice if someone could review this specifically 
WRT Windows

Re: Bumping autoconf AC_PREREQ to 2.60?

[Rainer Jung]

On 12.06.2010 21:07, Stefan Fritsch wrote:

On Friday 11 June 2010, Ruediger Pluem wrote:

Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in?rev=
951893&r1=951892&r2=951893&view=diff

== --- httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in Sun Jun  6 16:54:51 2010
@@ -170,6 +170,9 @@ dnl PCRE and for our config tests will b

  AC_PROG_CC
  AC_PROG_CPP


+dnl Try to get c99 support for variadic macros
+AC_PROG_CC_C99
+


This test is only present since autoconf>= 2.60.
Since 2.59 is still delivered with RedHat 4 / 5 this does not work
there, but the error is non fatal.


This means it is not a good idea to run buildconf on RH4/5, but a
configure created somewhere else with autoconf 2.60 should work fine.
So this mainly affects httpd developers.

We can either bump AC_PREREQ to 2.60, making it impossible to run
buildconf on RH4/5, or we can include the code for AC_PROG_CC_C99
(about 200 lines) from autoconf 2.60 in httpd's build system. The
current state seems like a bad idea, because of the potential to ship
a broken configure in release tarballs.

Preferences? Is anyone here developing on RHEL?


No problem for me.

2.59 is 6.5 years old, 2.60 4 years. Most recent is 2.65. The last time 
there was discussion about this (Nov 2008)


http://marc.info/?t=12278719352&r=1&w=2

the result seems to have been to recommend 2.61.

Regards,

Rainer

Running log_transaction from a pre-cleanup

[Stefan Fritsch]

From the blockers section in STATUS:

>  * Running the log_transaction hook from pool cleanup is fubar:
>
>  http://marc.info/?l=apache-httpd-dev&m=123910381908293&w=1

Shouldn't the log_transaction hook simply be called from a pre-
cleanup? After all, a module may create a sub-pool from the request 
pool at some time and still need that sub-pool in its log_transaction 
hook.

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.3.6-alpha

[Stefan Fritsch]

On Friday 11 June 2010, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> +/- 1
> [+1]  Release httpd-2.3.6 as Alpha

Bumping autoconf AC_PREREQ to 2.60?

[Stefan Fritsch]

On Friday 11 June 2010, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> > Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in
> > URL:
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in?rev=
> > 951893&r1=951892&r2=951893&view=diff
> > 
> > == --- httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in (original)
> > +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in Sun Jun  6 16:54:51 2010
> > @@ -170,6 +170,9 @@ dnl PCRE and for our config tests will b
> >
> >  AC_PROG_CC
> >  AC_PROG_CPP
> >  
> >
> > +dnl Try to get c99 support for variadic macros
> > +AC_PROG_CC_C99
> > +
> 
> This test is only present since autoconf >= 2.60.
> Since 2.59 is still delivered with RedHat 4 / 5 this does not work
> there, but the error is non fatal.

This means it is not a good idea to run buildconf on RH4/5, but a 
configure created somewhere else with autoconf 2.60 should work fine.
So this mainly affects httpd developers.

We can either bump AC_PREREQ to 2.60, making it impossible to run 
buildconf on RH4/5, or we can include the code for AC_PROG_CC_C99  
(about 200 lines) from autoconf 2.60 in httpd's build system. The 
current state seems like a bad idea, because of the potential to ship 
a broken configure in release tarballs.

Preferences? Is anyone here developing on RHEL?

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.3.6-alpha

[Mario Brandt]

non-binding
[x]  Release httpd-2.3.6 as Alpha

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.3.6-alpha

[Jim Jagielski]

On Jun 11, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.3.6-alpha are (will be) available
> at:
> 
>  
> 
> Your votes please;
> 
> +/- 1
> [  ]  Release httpd-2.3.6 as Alpha
> 
> Vote closes at 15:00 UTC on Wednesday June 16 2010.
> 

+1