RE: Tagged and rolled 2.0.41
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 17 September 2002 20:57 > >*sigh* Ofcourse you are right. So, what do we do, stick with 2.0.41 or retag > >APACHE_2_0_42 to be the same as APACHE_2_0_41 and reroll? > > Don't be silly, this is an alpha candidate. > > Before it moves to www.apache.org/dist/httpd/ fix it. Until then, it > matters not. Thanks for the feedback. This RM adds another point to his list of things to remember (while fixing the tarballs). Sander
Re: Moving to 2.0.42? WAS: RE: Tagged and rolled 2.0.41
On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 09:09:38PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: >... > > > Just on the basic premise that the tarball has been released. At this > > > point, it is available for users. If we are going to create new tarballs, > > > then must have a new name. Nope. The contents are the same. We're just fixing a process issue, not a code issue. > > *sigh* Ofcourse you are right. So, what do we do, stick with 2.0.41 or retag > > APACHE_2_0_42 to be the same as APACHE_2_0_41 and reroll? > > Ok, maybe this is all a bit too much for a _timestamp_. There were no > content changes. So, if someone would be using 2.0.41 (before or after the > timestamp tweak), the code would be the same. Exactly. The rules for creating new tarballs exist so that we can know *precisely* what code somebody is using when they say "2.0.41". If there were three tarballs with three different bodies of code, then we'd be hosed. And that is what the rules are about. In this case, we aren't changing anything but a timestamp to help people. > Since we haven't released yet > I would like to simply replace the existing tarballs and sigs. You're the RM. If you believe this will result in a good release, then go for it. >From my standpoint: +1 of course. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RE: Tagged and rolled 2.0.41
At 01:59 PM 9/17/2002, Sander Striker wrote: > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 17 September 2002 20:44 > > >>> I would also recommend a new tarball with the timestamp tweaked. > Something > >>> like so: > >>> > >>> $ tar xzf httpd-tar.gz > >>> $ touch .../ssl_expr_parse.c > >>> $ tar czf httpd-tar.gz httpd-... > >>> > >>> That's gonna affect the tarball's MD5 signature tho. > >> > >> And the PGP signatures. Do I hear objections against that? > > > > Just on the basic premise that the tarball has been released. At this > > point, it is available for users. If we are going to create new tarballs, > > then must have a new name. > >*sigh* Ofcourse you are right. So, what do we do, stick with 2.0.41 or retag >APACHE_2_0_42 to be the same as APACHE_2_0_41 and reroll? Don't be silly, this is an alpha candidate. Before it moves to www.apache.org/dist/httpd/ fix it. Until then, it matters not. Bill
Moving to 2.0.42? WAS: RE: Tagged and rolled 2.0.41
> From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 17 September 2002 20:59 > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 17 September 2002 20:44 > > >>> I would also recommend a new tarball with the timestamp tweaked. Something > >>> like so: > >>> > >>> $ tar xzf httpd-tar.gz > >>> $ touch .../ssl_expr_parse.c > >>> $ tar czf httpd-tar.gz httpd-... > >>> > >>> That's gonna affect the tarball's MD5 signature tho. > >> > >> And the PGP signatures. Do I hear objections against that? > > > > Just on the basic premise that the tarball has been released. At this > > point, it is available for users. If we are going to create new tarballs, > > then must have a new name. > > *sigh* Ofcourse you are right. So, what do we do, stick with 2.0.41 or retag > APACHE_2_0_42 to be the same as APACHE_2_0_41 and reroll? Ok, maybe this is all a bit too much for a _timestamp_. There were no content changes. So, if someone would be using 2.0.41 (before or after the timestamp tweak), the code would be the same. Since we haven't released yet I would like to simply replace the existing tarballs and sigs. Sander
RE: Tagged and rolled 2.0.41
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 17 September 2002 20:44 >>> I would also recommend a new tarball with the timestamp tweaked. Something >>> like so: >>> >>> $ tar xzf httpd-tar.gz >>> $ touch .../ssl_expr_parse.c >>> $ tar czf httpd-tar.gz httpd-... >>> >>> That's gonna affect the tarball's MD5 signature tho. >> >> And the PGP signatures. Do I hear objections against that? > > Just on the basic premise that the tarball has been released. At this > point, it is available for users. If we are going to create new tarballs, > then must have a new name. *sigh* Ofcourse you are right. So, what do we do, stick with 2.0.41 or retag APACHE_2_0_42 to be the same as APACHE_2_0_41 and reroll? Sander
RE: Tagged and rolled 2.0.41
> > I would also recommend a new tarball with the timestamp tweaked. Something > > like so: > > > > $ tar xzf httpd-tar.gz > > $ touch .../ssl_expr_parse.c > > $ tar czf httpd-tar.gz httpd-... > > > > That's gonna affect the tarball's MD5 signature tho. > > And the PGP signatures. Do I hear objections against that? Just on the basic premise that the tarball has been released. At this point, it is available for users. If we are going to create new tarballs, then must have a new name. Ryan ___ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Jean St Oakland CA 94610 ---
RE: Tagged and rolled 2.0.41
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 17 September 2002 20:31 > On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 12:56:21PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: > > > From: Mads Toftum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: 17 September 2002 12:38 > > > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 03:41:15AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I've tagged and rolled 2.0.41. Please test the tarballs found > > > > at http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ and cast thy votes. > > > > > > > One very small issue when building (tested on solaris 8 sparc) with > > > ssl_expr_parse.y in modules/ssl. Given that the timestamp on that file > > > is newer than on the output files, then make wants to run them through > > > yacc again. Looking at the timestamps it seems that ssl_expr_parse.y > > > has been updated by buildconf. Updating the timestamp on the output > > > files makes apache build cleanly without yacc. > > > > Grmpf. Should we modify httpd_roll_release to touch the output files? > > > > Samder > > Hey "Samder"... Yes, +1 on tweaking httpd_roll_release to touch the files. Bah, I can't even spell my own name ;) > I would also recommend a new tarball with the timestamp tweaked. Something > like so: > > $ tar xzf httpd-tar.gz > $ touch .../ssl_expr_parse.c > $ tar czf httpd-tar.gz httpd-... > > That's gonna affect the tarball's MD5 signature tho. And the PGP signatures. Do I hear objections against that? Sander
Re: Tagged and rolled 2.0.41
On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 12:56:21PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: > > From: Mads Toftum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 17 September 2002 12:38 > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 03:41:15AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've tagged and rolled 2.0.41. Please test the tarballs found > > > at http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ and cast thy votes. > > > > > One very small issue when building (tested on solaris 8 sparc) with > > ssl_expr_parse.y in modules/ssl. Given that the timestamp on that file > > is newer than on the output files, then make wants to run them through > > yacc again. Looking at the timestamps it seems that ssl_expr_parse.y > > has been updated by buildconf. Updating the timestamp on the output > > files makes apache build cleanly without yacc. > > Grmpf. Should we modify httpd_roll_release to touch the output files? > > Samder Hey "Samder"... Yes, +1 on tweaking httpd_roll_release to touch the files. I would also recommend a new tarball with the timestamp tweaked. Something like so: $ tar xzf httpd-tar.gz $ touch .../ssl_expr_parse.c $ tar czf httpd-tar.gz httpd-... That's gonna affect the tarball's MD5 signature tho. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RE: Tagged and rolled 2.0.41
> From: Mads Toftum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 17 September 2002 12:38 > On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 03:41:15AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've tagged and rolled 2.0.41. Please test the tarballs found > > at http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ and cast thy votes. > > > One very small issue when building (tested on solaris 8 sparc) with > ssl_expr_parse.y in modules/ssl. Given that the timestamp on that file > is newer than on the output files, then make wants to run them through > yacc again. Looking at the timestamps it seems that ssl_expr_parse.y > has been updated by buildconf. Updating the timestamp on the output > files makes apache build cleanly without yacc. Grmpf. Should we modify httpd_roll_release to touch the output files? Samder
Re: Tagged and rolled 2.0.41
On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 03:41:15AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote: > Hi, > > I've tagged and rolled 2.0.41. Please test the tarballs found > at http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ and cast thy votes. > One very small issue when building (tested on solaris 8 sparc) with ssl_expr_parse.y in modules/ssl. Given that the timestamp on that file is newer than on the output files, then make wants to run them through yacc again. Looking at the timestamps it seems that ssl_expr_parse.y has been updated by buildconf. Updating the timestamp on the output files makes apache build cleanly without yacc. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
Re: Tagged and rolled 2.0.41
On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 18:41, Sander Striker wrote: > Hi, > > I've tagged and rolled 2.0.41. Please test the tarballs found > at http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ and cast thy votes. The tarball looks good, functionally and performance-wise, in my testing +1 for GA Brian
