Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 it resides is intended strictly for developers, then I think that's too conservative, especially if it's just a roll problem. I would vote in favor of having a developer only place to grab it then. +1 The mail to ask people to test should go to the list of httpd committers. That excludes people like Madhu who isn't a committer but has given us valuable feedback on our roll procedures. My vote would be something like Justin suggested, with a few tweaks: put the preliminary tarballs in a developer only directory, put appropriate disclaimers in a HEADER file (so you see them in an autoindex listing), and ask people to test on the dev@httpd list. Once we know the fate of the tarball, remove it from this dir so people don't get used to finding stuff there. We probably wouldn't want any links on our site to this directory either. If in spite of these precautions, any lurkers grab the preliminary tarballs and have problems: * they have been warned, * if it's a code problem, we are going to patch, re-tag, and re-roll soon anyway, * if it's a roll problem, doing ./buildconf will often fix (we could mention that in the HEADER), * I would think most responsible lurkers would de-cloak and speak up if they are the first to see a problem. If not, how much should I care about their problem? Greg
RE: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2)
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.
RE: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2)
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! == [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2)
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] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 both as separate and as a single document.. Especially one that is (in the minds of most implementors) malformed. That is *such* a load of crap. 'Most implementors' my foot. If you don't like something, OtherBill, please don't act as though you represent the industry when you express that dislike. A number of technologies might barf on ?ONEPAGE, while they have no problem with ?ONEPAGE=1. Anything that barfs on '?token' and will only work with '?token=value' is seriously, seriously broken. Can you name some of these 'technologies'? There is a wealth of reference material that somehow fails to support the idea that valueless tokens are 'malformed'; for starters: RFC 2396 §3.4 URL:ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2396.txt Original CGI spec (such as it is): URL:http://hoohoo.ncsa.uiuc.edu/cgi/env.html#query URL:http://hoohoo.ncsa.uiuc.edu/cgi/cl.html The still-evaolving 'new' CGI spec: URL:http://cgi-spec.golux.com/draft-coar-cgi-v11-03-clean.html#6.1.8 URL:http://cgi-spec.golux.com/draft-coar-cgi-v11-03-clean.html#5.0 Just where on Earth did you *get* this idea, anyway? -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millenium hand and shrimp!
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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) was that the numbers are MEANINGLESS. So why are we trying to overload them? If we roll, and something's wrong with the tarball, we bump before rolling again. Otherwise we're exposed as Joshua and Roy have pointed out. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millenium hand and shrimp!
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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. 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). -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millenium hand and shrimp!
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 resolved earlier by having the dev.apache.org/dist directory. Perhaps we need a /dist/httpd/dev directory where we can place preliminary tarballs before releasing? We need to place tarballs somewhere where the developers can get to them so that we can perform sanity checks on them before officially announcing. In this case, if you actually read dev@httpd, you were probably aware that we screwed up the rolling the first time. We made no other announcement of it outside this list yet, so if you got a bad tarball before we released it, I'm not too concerned. Once we've made any sort of public announcement, we can't take the tarball back. And, we updated the how_to_release page to indicate that you shouldn't read it. That'd help a bit. -- justin
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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. Unfortunately, once it's rolled *and placed someplace where someone other than the roller can get it* then, almost by definition, it's publically available. Even at that point, the tarball was in a place where people look for soon-to-be-released goodies. People lurk on dev@ and it's just too dangerous for us to replace tarballs on the hope that only people-who-know-better have snagged it :) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 change between the original tarball and the second, just the machine used to do the roll. Maybe we should say that once rolled and place in a location where someone (*anyone*) other than the roller can obtain the tarball. Obviously, as the RM, I can roll the tarball locally until my eyes bleed if I discover problems with what I'm doing. But once I say Hey, here's the tarball we're stuck. It's either perfect, or we bump. ;) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson
RE: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 the false premise that version numbers are scarce. Tagging and rolling are fairly easy operations (with the fancy new script). Arguing for days about exactly what changes should justify a new tag is difficult. Joshua.
RE: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 the false premise that version numbers are scarce. Tagging and rolling are fairly easy operations (with the fancy new script). Arguing for days about exactly what changes should justify a new tag is difficult. 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 test them, because they know that another release will be made, which will obsolete what they are testing. There is a balance that must be achieved between tagging often enough to allow the code to develop, and tagging so often that it doesn't make any sense to test what was tagged. 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. Yes, versions numbers don't mean anything, but people's time does. Ryan
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 On High. When did the opinion of any one person, no matter who, become Gospel? IIRC the comment was based on having tarballs too frequently as a matter of course, not neccesarily because of this type of situation. 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. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson
RE: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 himself comment means... like it's some sort of Voice From On High. When did the opinion of any one person, no matter who, become Gospel? The Roy himself was merely because Roy was the person who proposed this release model. In my mind, that means that he understood it best when we were first beginning to use it. IIRC the comment was based on having tarballs too frequently as a matter of course, not neccesarily because of this type of situation. 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. I would vote in favor of having a developer only place to grab it then. The mail to ask people to test should go to the list of httpd committers. Ryan
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 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 both as separate and as a single document.. Not suggesting we 'ditch' the SSI. Suggesting we do it 'both ways', so to speak... full.html for those who want 'the big list' (it can be grabbed by tag_and_roll, if we like), and the modular design that Joshua is advocating :) Especially one that is (in the minds of most implementors) malformed. That is *such* a load of crap. 'Most implementors' my foot. If you don't like something, OtherBill, please don't act as though you represent the industry when you express that dislike. SORRY... however it seems there is a heck of a lot of assumptions in the java-based engines that things come in foo=bar notation. I'm not saying that ISINDEX is useless, but the other form is (today) a whole heck of a lot more portable across techologies. A number of technologies might barf on ?ONEPAGE, while they have no problem with ?ONEPAGE=1. Anything that barfs on '?token' and will only work with '?token=value' is seriously, seriously broken. Can you name some of these 'technologies'? There is a wealth of reference material that somehow fails to support the idea that valueless tokens are 'malformed'; for starters: RFC 2396 §3.4 URL:ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2396.txt Original CGI spec (such as it is): URL:http://hoohoo.ncsa.uiuc.edu/cgi/env.html#query URL:http://hoohoo.ncsa.uiuc.edu/cgi/cl.html The still-evaolving 'new' CGI spec: URL:http://cgi-spec.golux.com/draft-coar-cgi-v11-03-clean.html#6.1.8 URL:http://cgi-spec.golux.com/draft-coar-cgi-v11-03-clean.html#5.0 Just where on Earth did you *get* this idea, anyway? A bug report, of course, that I'm not able to place, seeing as I'm reconstructing that machine at this moment. I do believe, however, that jk sessions are implicated - but please DO NOT hold me to that, since I can't verify my frame of reference. Anyways, yes - SSI is a much better choice to pull these together. And yes, some folks would like to read the short pages on what they care about, rather than the mega-list. I'm not suggesting I PERSONALLY maintain it, I only suggested that both 'forms' of the SSI results are distributed. Does that last comment make sense? Bill
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 test them, because they know that another release will be made, which will obsolete what they are testing. ++1. If we are going to do that to testers, let's just have every-six-hour tarballs sitting out for download in perpetuity. --- Joe: Hey, which apache should I download? Mike: Well, as long as you are on Solaris, that 3 Mar 2003 tarball worked really well, but you might want to go back to the 2nd if you are trying to build on Linux - that one didn't work for me. --- Roy was dead on... You tag infreqently enough that folks respect that some good thought went into releasing that version. Build snafus are negligable, and really not worth arguing over - just fix em and release. However, Ryan, your change that dropped out the supplimental strings (actually assigning server-strings of -alpha/-beta/-gold, and the two digit subversion) really hosed our ability to assure a user that yea - that is the -alpha, and you really needed the -beta before you can build on, say, Netware. And _not_ to Ryan; Anywho - this has been argued to death. Whatever the roll 'n release docs say on httpd.apache.org/dev is what I'll follow, these discussions are SO utterly nonproductive. Heck - aren't we here 'cause we like to code? Bill
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 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. 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 flat_namespace issue). -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 worry about it for now as long as 2.0.31 is just an alpha. If you are planning on releasing .31 as beta or GA, then the fix definitely needs to be included. From here on out, NetWare is good to go! Yeah!! 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. +1 (for Apache 2) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2)
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 code, invalid URLs), throwing in a few graceful restarts to make it interesting *given the rather modest characteristics of my FreeBSD box, perhaps hammered isn't the right term :) 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. The symptoms of my binbuild failures are consistent with the use of some libtool other than 1.4.2, and I've been testing Apache 2.0 HEAD builds every several hours on AIX, with multiple compilers and multiple build flavors, without hitting any problems that aren't resolved in 2.0.31. The only recent breakage was Bill's proxy breakage (fixed prior to 2.0.31) and the APR_OS_DEFAULT breakage (introduced after 2.0.31). --/-- There's no magic solution for now w.r.t. creating a tarball that works everywhere since some of our platforms have conflicting libtool version requirements. All we can hope to accomplish currently is a) the source tarball works as-is on a reasonable number of platforms (yeah, somebody may end up unhappy, but I promise not to scream if it won't work as-is on a platform I care about) b) people familiar with platform problems can work around them (e.g., wipe clean and do buildconf) to do a valid binary build when the time comes c) we write down any work-arounds in a common place so that end users can replicate the procedures -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/ Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 flat_namespace issue). AFAIK, libtool 1.4.2 is required for Darwin. I got the tarball rolled w/1.4.2 to work on Moof. Greg
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2)
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 the AIX box I use and apparently the shared library it installs doesn't have the same name that apr-util wants to load, resulting in a load failure for libexpat. Time to add --with-expat=srclib/apr-util/xml/our-freaking-copy-of-expat to binbuild.sh and try again :( -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/ Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: lose the underscores! (was: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2))
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 directories like all other packages out there? A superstitious behavior involving a fear of the Windows handling of extensions. One of those things I recall feeling strongly about at the time. - ben And there was a day, not long ago, that foo.x.y.z would have choked a good number of Win32 filesystems, especially if the files lived on Netware or LanMan Network shares. I'd safely pronounce those days nearly gone, and 2.0 is as good a time as any to change this convention. We have a number of index.html.foo files out there, that couldn't even be unpacked. So many files in our cvs are mult-extension that having a 2.0.31 really isn't a big issue. [If it doesn't unpack into the top level correctly - the user can guess that the contents below are mucked up as well :-] Bill
Re: lose the underscores! (was: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2))
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: ... 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 a fear of the Windows handling of extensions. One of those things I recall feeling strongly about at the time. - ben I'd safely pronounce those days nearly gone, and 2.0 is as good a time as any to change this convention. I don't advocate changing this for the -alpha ... when [if] you retar to release the -beta, that would be a good time, I suppose, or it can wait for .32 Bill
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2)
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 fact that somebody installed an expat RPM on the AIX box I use and apparently the shared library it installs doesn't have the same name that apr-util wants to load, resulting in a load failure for libexpat. no, the real explanation is: for testing this tarball I did the binbuild on one machine and installed it on a different machine; I didn't have the expat RPM installed on the target machine the fact is that all along I've been using a separate expat on my build machine and didn't realize it :( (that could explain a hack I had to put in the build somewhere; dunno yet) Time to add --with-expat=srclib/apr-util/xml/our-freaking-copy-of-expat to binbuild.sh and try again :( After doing that, everything is humming. +1 for beta based on AIX testing of something built via binbuild... sending a mix of requests, no unexpected error log messages, no high CPU or storage I'll commit the binbuild.sh change to 2.0.32-dev. It could get challenging to build a reasonable binary distribution otherwise. Special instructions for AIX (may apply to other platforms where libtool-in-tarball is uncool): 1) make sure autoconf 2.13 and libtool 1.4.2 are found first 2) unpack tarball and cd to top-level directory 3) remove all occurrences of ltconfig and ltmain.sh in the source tree 4) if you have an expat installation already, you may want to apply the patch below 5) ./buildconf 6) CC=xlc_r build/binbuild.sh (or invoke configure yourself) patch for overriding the expat selection: Index: build/binbuild.sh === RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/build/binbuild.sh,v retrieving revision 1.33 diff -u -r1.33 binbuild.sh --- build/binbuild.sh 7 Jan 2002 16:03:25 - 1.33 +++ build/binbuild.sh 2 Feb 2002 17:25:54 - @@ -9,9 +9,10 @@ OS=`./srclib/apr/build/config.guess` BUILD_DIR=`pwd`/bindist DEFAULT_DIR=/usr/local/apache2 -CONFIGPARAM=--with-layout=BinaryDistribution --prefix=$BUILD_DIR --enable-mods-shared=most APDIR=`pwd` APDIR=`basename $APDIR` +APFULLDIR=`pwd` +CONFIGPARAM=--with-layout=BinaryDistribution --prefix=$BUILD_DIR +--enable-mods-shared=most --with-expat=$APFULLDIR/srclib/apr-util/xml/expat VER=`echo $APDIR |sed s/httpd-//` TAR=`srclib/apr/build/PrintPath tar` GTAR=`srclib/apr/build/PrintPath gtar` -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/ Born in Roswell... married an alien...
RE: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 worry about it for now as long as 2.0.31 is just an alpha. If you are planning on releasing .31 as beta or GA, then the fix definitely needs to be included. From here on out, NetWare is good to go! Yeah!! 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. +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 tarball needed to be re-rolled. IF the code needed to be modified greatly, I would agree, but for a simple re-roll without changing code or tag, we don't need to bump version numbers. Ryan
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 version or patch it in the release notes? Changing this file when we reroll anyway to clean up the tarball seems like no issue to me; 1. The #ifdef v.s. #if resolves identically on OS2/Unix/Win32. Nearly all other platforms supported it (get the code from an #if or #ifdef.) 2. It fixes Netware. If they download an older -alpha, they get nothing. If they download -beta it works. The code didn't change, the conditions to exclude Netware-broken code changed. Isn't this [part] of the point to -alpha, -beta, -gold succession? Trivial mistakes might be corrected, while code flaws (as rbb pointed out) can command a new dot release. Yea - it's a slippery slope, but this bug was pretty firmly at the top of the hill. If we want to wait for -beta, I'd suggest tagging the original -alpha files as APACHE_2_0_31-alpha, then move this patched file's tag APACHE_2_0_31. If we did something similar to -beta, do the same, add a -beta tag, then push the APACHE_2_0_31 tag for the file or two that misconfigured _this_code_ on a given platform. Fixing ./configure built with the wrong libtool, correcting an #if FEATURE for some specific platform(s), or correcting missing/too many files seems like trivial changes. They don't change the CODE BASE that we released. Bill
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 and full.html in one place, and not rely on QUERY_STRING so much. Especially one that is (in the minds of most implementors) malformed. A number of technologies might barf on ?ONEPAGE, while they have no problem with ?ONEPAGE=1. The regex logic can be used to pull a ONEPAGE flag out of a list of query args :) Bill
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 from that file in the faq. Greg
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 tarball needed to be re-rolled. IF the code needed to be modified greatly, I would agree, but for a simple re-roll without changing code or tag, we don't need to bump version numbers. AFAIK, it's *always* been the policy that once rolled, if *anything* goes wrong, you have to bump. Even the how-to-release docs still say it. The *procedure* in httpd-2.0 may be obsoleted with httpd_roll_release but not that guideline. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 worry about it for now as long as 2.0.31 is just an alpha. If you are planning on releasing .31 as beta or GA, then the fix definitely needs to be included. From here on out, NetWare is good to go! Yeah!! 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. +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 tarball needed to be re-rolled. IF the code needed to be modified greatly, I would agree, but for a simple re-roll without changing code or tag, we don't need to bump version numbers. I agree with you Ryan. What I was not in favor of is making a code change then re-rolling, which is what I think was required for the Netware change. Bill
RE: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 tarball needed to be re-rolled. IF the code needed to be modified greatly, I would agree, but for a simple re-roll without changing code or tag, we don't need to bump version numbers. AFAIK, it's *always* been the policy that once rolled, if *anything* goes wrong, you have to bump. Even the how-to-release docs still say it. The *procedure* in httpd-2.0 may be obsoleted with httpd_roll_release but not that guideline. 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 change between the original tarball and the second, just the machine used to do the roll. Ryan
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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. We are just talking about rolling the tarball on a different machine than was originally used. The code didn't change between the original tarball and the second, just the machine used to do the roll. ++1... this shouldn't be a huge hangup. But Josh has a point... The justification for not doing this is that the 2.0.31 tarball is now public (officially or not). Now if we reroll a new tarball and someone comes to us and says I'm having a problem with 2.0.31, we will never be able to know exactly what they are using. Even just the simple matter of creating a .tar.gz can create big differences between distributions, let alone the question of buildconf. Except that What package did you download isn't an unreasonable question. Oh, I'm not sure, I renamed it to fsukup.tar.gz isn't an acceptable answer. That's why we have kicked around the idea of rolling these into the -beta ... sure the -alpha package had a few packaging issues. They are resolved, life rolls on. Suggestion: Tag 2.0.32 at exactly the same place as 2.0.31 (possibly with a bump for the netware stuff) roll a new tarball with that version, and release that. That is quite a waste for build-issues on an alpha.
Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 as beta or GA, then the fix definitely needs to be included. From here on out, NetWare is good to go! Yeah!! Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, February 01, 2002 1:39:39 PM 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
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 as 2.0.31 is just an alpha. If you are planning on releasing .31 as beta or GA, then the fix definitely needs to be included. From here on out, NetWare is good to go! Yeah!! We are definately trying to make this a beta. Perhaps Ian can be pursuaded (with money, food, etc..) to do a reroll, or we could wait a few days and try again. An alternative is to post the patch in the release notes (it is a very small patch). -aaron
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 as 2.0.31 is just an alpha. If you are planning on releasing .31 as beta or GA, then the fix definitely needs to be included. From here on out, NetWare is good to go! Yeah!! 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. Bill
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 httpd-2_0_31 - the howto release page says to use apache_2.0.31, but AIUI, that's not our convention anymore - we use httpd-X_Y_Z now. So, I renamed the tarball when I placed it on daedalus, so that's my fault. But, that shouldn't stop us from beta status as its a packaging issue that is trivial to resolve. -- justin
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 2.0.28 as well. -- justin
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 I could test the included configure scripts. Greg config.status: creating support/envvars-std mv: support/envvars-std: set owner/group (was: 1158/0): Operation not permitted config.status: creating support/log_server_status mv: support/log_server_status: set owner/group (was: 1158/0): Operation not permitted config.status: creating support/logresolve.pl mv: support/logresolve.pl: set owner/group (was: 1158/0): Operation not permitted config.status: creating support/phf_abuse_log.cgi mv: support/phf_abuse_log.cgi: set owner/group (was: 1158/0): Operation not permitted config.status: creating support/split-logfile mv: support/split-logfile: set owner/group (was: 1158/0): Operation not permitted config.status: creating build/rules.mk mv: build/rules.mk: set owner/group (was: 1158/0): Operation not permitted [bunches more of those earlier] config.status: creating include/ap_config_auto.h config.status: include/ap_config_auto.h is unchanged ./config.status: 775: Syntax error: done unexpected (expecting )) [gregames@daedalus httpd-2.0.31]$
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 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 for HP-UX. So I re-rolled on daedalus for most platforms, and on Linux w/autoconf 1.4.2 for Darwin. Greg
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 owner/group (was: 1158/0): Operation not permitted Sounds like permission problems. Perhaps you need to extract it without a the user-id in the tarballs? -- justin
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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: support/envvars-std: set owner/group (was: 1158/0): Operation not permitted Sounds like permission problems. Perhaps you need to extract it without a the user-id in the tarballs? -- justin 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 ?
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 mentioned there is a script in httpd-2.0 that generates the tarballs automatically. I think it's httpd_roll_release. Try that instead. -- justin
RE: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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: support/envvars-std: set owner/group (was: 1158/0): Operation not permitted Sounds like permission problems. Perhaps you need to extract it without a the user-id in the tarballs? -- justin 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 ? Just re-roll 31. As long as the code isn't changed, we are fine to re-roll tarballs. The goal is that the tarballs are easy to produce, using tags that we control. The biggest problem is that the rolling_a_release page is horribly out of date, and it is completely invalid. All you have to do to roll a release is: ssh cvs.apache.org cvs co httpd-2.0 cp httpd-2.0/build/httpd_roll_release . ./httpd_roll_release TAG_NAME logfile_name user The TAG_NAME is the tag to use to check out the source. Logfile_name is a log file to use to capture all of the output User is your user ID, which the script uses to correctly sign the release. If you key files are setup correctly, you most likely do not need that argument. If you use those four steps, your builds should just work. If they don't, then we need to fix the rolling script so that it does just work. Ryan
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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. 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 for HP-UX. So I re-rolled on daedalus for most platforms, and on Linux w/autoconf 1.4.2 for Darwin. Greg
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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: support/envvars-std: set owner/group (was: 1158/0): Operation not permitted Sounds like permission problems. Perhaps you need to extract it without a the user-id in the tarballs? -- justin 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 )) error. Greg
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 think this roll will be done on icarus instead of on Ian's machine, so it'll get autoconf-2.13. Bear with us. =) -- justin
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 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. AIX definitely needs libtool 1.4.2. -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/ Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 key at web site: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/ Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 and generated the tarballs on cvs.apache.org I don't have access to daedulus so before the tarball has been places in http://www.apache.org/~jerenkrantz/2.0.31
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 day. AIX definitely needs libtool 1.4.2. news to me. Greg
RE: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 modules/aaa/Makefile creating modules/cache/Makefile creating modules/echo/Makefile creating modules/experimental/Makefile creating modules/filters/Makefile creating modules/loggers/Makefile creating modules/metadata/Makefile creating modules/proxy/Makefile creating modules/ssl/Makefile creating modules/test/Makefile cat: Cannot open /proj/middleware/madhum/PA/apache_2.0.31/modules/test/Makefile.in: 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: 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 day. AIX definitely needs libtool 1.4.2. news to me. Greg
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 modules/aaa/Makefile creating modules/cache/Makefile creating modules/echo/Makefile creating modules/experimental/Makefile creating modules/filters/Makefile creating modules/loggers/Makefile creating modules/metadata/Makefile creating modules/proxy/Makefile creating modules/ssl/Makefile creating modules/test/Makefile cat: Cannot open /proj/middleware/madhum/PA/apache_2.0.31/modules/test/Makefile.in: No such file or directory creating os/unix/Makefile [...] Ian did the original roll by hand, and the how-to-release notes say to remove the test directory. Please disregard this tarball and if you're interested in testing the soon-to-be-alpha-and-we-hope-beta tarball, see http://www.apache.org/~jerenkrantz/2.0.31 thanks for testing, -aaron
RE: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 have read: cvs co httpd-2.0/build/httpd_roll_release Ryan cp httpd-2.0/build/httpd_roll_release . ./httpd_roll_release TAG_NAME logfile_name user -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/ Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 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 2.0.28 as well. -- justin
RE: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 03:08:19PM -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 modules/aaa/Makefile creating modules/cache/Makefile creating modules/echo/Makefile creating modules/experimental/Makefile creating modules/filters/Makefile creating modules/loggers/Makefile creating modules/metadata/Makefile creating modules/proxy/Makefile creating modules/ssl/Makefile creating modules/test/Makefile cat: Cannot open /proj/middleware/madhum/PA/apache_2.0.31/modules/test/Makefile.in: No such file or directory creating os/unix/Makefile [...] Ian did the original roll by hand, and the how-to-release notes say to remove the test directory. Please disregard this tarball and if you're interested in testing the soon-to-be-alpha-and-we-hope-beta tarball, see http://www.apache.org/~jerenkrantz/2.0.31 thanks for testing, -aaron
Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2)
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
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2)
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 graceful restarts on prefork, it just appears to takes about 6 seconds to complete a graceful restart cycle on my Linux 2.4.8 box. In the meantime, ps lists the children processes as defunct (which scared me off at first). But, after about 6 seconds, httpd starts serving again (incl. queued requests). Anyway, this delay looks defendable. I think this delay is acceptable, so I'm officially +1 on the 2.0.31 tarball for beta from: http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2_0_31-alpha.tar.gz Enjoy. -- justin
Re: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled
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 just checked in a fix for that, thanks to Zack Weinberg. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
lose the underscores! (was: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2))
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: ./httpd-2.0.31-alpha/ What is with the darn underscores? Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: lose the underscores! (was: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2)
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]- ...sleep till noon.
Re: lose the underscores! (was: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2))
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 a fear of the Windows handling of extensions. One of those things I recall feeling strongly about at the time. - ben
Re: lose the underscores! (was: Apache 2_0_31 is now rolled (take 2)
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 you don't like the underscores you should patch the script. I'm not going to change this roll (again) just for underscores. ciao...
