Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On 7/29/2010 4:37 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote: Rainer Jung schrieb: In addition: None of 2.2.16 yet made it to archive.a.o, neither eu nor us. Seems something is broken there. I did already post this 2 days ago on IRC Infra channel, and someone wanted to look into it ... maybe you send a ping / reminder there too so they see that it needs to be fixed (I had first some discussion why I want to see the files there, etc. until they finally came to the point to realize that there might be something broken which needs to be fixed ...) It seems this was manually fixed, I've pointed out on infra@ already that the new win32 objects similarly need to be manually fixed.
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On 7/29/2010 11:07 AM, bswen wrote: httpd 2.2.16+: No more Win32 releases?? Nope none before, and never again. We've never had a win32 release, Bing. The ASF releases source code for consumption, redistribution and modification by the public at no charge. Some committers add binary packages for one or more of their preferred platforms, but these are purely for convenience and are not the release by the foundation, which is open *source* :) So in this case, I'm slowed down to typing 1-and-a-bit handed till this cast comes off this week, and I'm afraid I was caught up in other responsibilities. You'll find there happen to be win32 packages there now, but you should always expect such things at the contributors' convenience, not your own, and you should always feel welcome to build the release on your platform of choice.
RE: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
httpd 2.2.16+: No more Win32 releases?? Cheers, bing -- 发件人: Paul Querna [mailto:p...@querna.org] 发送时间: 2010年7月25日 1:25 收件人: dev@httpd.apache.org 主题: Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16 Plenty of +1s, one +0.9 and no -1s, so I'll start syncing the files out to the mirror network, and prep the announcement mail for tomorrow. Thanks everyone for voting and testing On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote: Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.16 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Your votes please; +/- 1 [ ] Release httpd-2.2.16 Vote closes at 02:00 UTC on Saturday July 24 2010. Thanks, Paul
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On Jul 29, 2010, at 9:07 AM, bswen wrote: httpd 2.2.16+: No more Win32 releases?? I think no one has gotten around to posting Win32 sources, that's all. S. Cheers, bing -- 发件人: Paul Querna [mailto:p...@querna.org] 发送时间: 2010年7月25日 1:25 收件人: dev@httpd.apache.org 主题: Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16 Plenty of +1s, one +0.9 and no -1s, so I'll start syncing the files out to the mirror network, and prep the announcement mail for tomorrow. Thanks everyone for voting and testing On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote: Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.16 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Your votes please; +/- 1 [ ] Release httpd-2.2.16 Vote closes at 02:00 UTC on Saturday July 24 2010. Thanks, Paul -- Sander Temme scte...@apache.org PGP FP: FC5A 6FC6 2E25 2DFD 8007 EE23 9BB8 63B0 F51B B88A
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On 29.07.2010 18:19, Sander Temme wrote: On Jul 29, 2010, at 9:07 AM, bswen wrote: httpd 2.2.16+: No more Win32 releases?? I think no one has gotten around to posting Win32 sources, that's all. In addition: None of 2.2.16 yet made it to archive.a.o, neither eu nor us. Seems something is broken there. Regards, Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
Rainer Jung schrieb: On 29.07.2010 18:19, Sander Temme wrote: On Jul 29, 2010, at 9:07 AM, bswen wrote: httpd 2.2.16+: No more Win32 releases?? I think no one has gotten around to posting Win32 sources, that's all. In addition: None of 2.2.16 yet made it to archive.a.o, neither eu nor us. Seems something is broken there. I did already post this 2 days ago on IRC Infra channel, and someone wanted to look into it ... maybe you send a ping / reminder there too so they see that it needs to be fixed (I had first some discussion why I want to see the files there, etc. until they finally came to the point to realize that there might be something broken which needs to be fixed ...) Gün.
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On Wednesday 21 July 2010, Paul Querna wrote: [+1] Release httpd-2.2.16 Works ok on Debian unstable/x86.
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote: Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.16 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Your votes please; +/- 1 [ ] Release httpd-2.2.16 +.9 at the moment; need to test out the mod_dir concern mod_dir now has two fixups hooks, and having two fixups hooks isn't handled properly by hook sorting when a module wants its fixups hook to come afterwards, but I wouldn't claim this to be a showstopper.
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On 21.07.2010 20:45, Paul Querna wrote: Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.16 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Your votes please; +/- 1 [+1] Release httpd-2.2.16 +1 for release. Tested on Solaris 8 Sparc, SuSE Linux Enterprise 10 (32Bit and 64Bit). - Signature and Hashes OK - gz and bz2 identical, no unexpected diff to svn tag - builds fine with most and all either static or shared and MPMs prefork, worker, event (were applicable) - test suite run for all those builds, no regressions from 2.2.15 Failing: - t/apache/pr17629.t - t/apache/pr43939.t (see Rüdiger's comment about a missing backport for PR 17629 already contained in STATUS; no regression, I see also failure with 2.2.15 and 2.2.14) - t/ssl/extlookup.t - t/ssl/require.t No regression. Both fail when trying to read the OID 1.3.6.1.4.1.18060.12.0 with value Lemons from the client cert client_ok. mod_test_ssl returns NULL, SSLRequire logs [info] [client 127.0.0.1] Failed expression: Lemons in OID(1.3.6.1.4.1.18060.12.0) I wasn't able to find the root cause, the value seems to be in the cert when I dump it with OpenSSL. The dump shows leading .., which seems to be because the value was configured DER encoded. OpenSSL version was 0.9.8o. BTW: This should not be caused by SSL renegotiation. Both server *and* client use OpenSSL 0.9.8n resp. 0.9.8o and the Apache error log contains Performing full renegotiation: complete handshake protocol (client does support secure renegotiation) Regards, Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
Plenty of +1s, one +0.9 and no -1s, so I'll start syncing the files out to the mirror network, and prep the announcement mail for tomorrow. Thanks everyone for voting and testing On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote: Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.16 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Your votes please; +/- 1 [ ] Release httpd-2.2.16 Vote closes at 02:00 UTC on Saturday July 24 2010. Thanks, Paul
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote: Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.16 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Your votes please; +/- 1 [ ] Release httpd-2.2.16 +.9 at the moment; need to test out the mod_dir concern
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
Non-binding +1 Builds tests with no regressions on Linux RHEL5 x86
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
+1 on newer build. On Jul 21, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Paul Querna wrote: Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.16 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Your votes please; +/- 1 [ ] Release httpd-2.2.16 Vote closes at 02:00 UTC on Saturday July 24 2010. Thanks, Paul
RE: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
+1 on the rerolled one. Tested on RHEL 4 / 5 32 / 64 Bit: 4 failures in test suite (the ones Eric already mentioned) but no regressions. Builds and runs on Solaris 8 / 9 / 10. Regards Rüdiger -Original Message- From: Paul Querna Sent: Mittwoch, 21. Juli 2010 20:45 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16 Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.16 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Your votes please; +/- 1 [ ] Release httpd-2.2.16 Vote closes at 02:00 UTC on Saturday July 24 2010. Thanks, Paul
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote: Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.16 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ +1 for release, passes test framework on AIX/PPC32. (on the 2nd try tarball) -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
Am 22.07.2010 23:53, schrieb Paul Querna: On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Paul Quernap...@querna.org wrote: Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.16 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Your votes please; +/- 1 [+1] Release httpd-2.2.16 Vote closes at 02:00 UTC on Saturday July 24 2010. +1 on NetWare - builds and runs fine with PHP, Perl, mod_jk ... Gün.
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On 22.07.2010 07:46, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 07/22/2010 06:10 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 7/21/2010 10:09 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: On 22.07.2010 04:52, Paul Querna wrote: Ack-- I could re-tag with libtool 1.x, if we don't want to ship a modified apr-util. I always use an external expat it seems :( Thoughts? For the ASF release re-tag would be enough. There's a few people though, that already ran into the same problem with 2.2.15 (BZ49053). It's possible some distros might run buildconf before providing their source bundles, but it could also just have been those users themselves. The info given in the issue does not clarify this. Since the buildconf bug itself is not a regression and there are well known workarounds I would say re-tag and fix with 2.2.17. AIUI - this is a reroll, but the tag remains the same? If the source files in svn are nonvolatile, then going with libtool 1.x might be the ticket. +1 to reroll. The tag can stay the same. Don't know why Paul and me both used the wording re-tag when talking about a procedure that doesn't change the svn sources. So yes, I meant re-roll. Regards, Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote: On 22.07.2010 07:46, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 07/22/2010 06:10 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 7/21/2010 10:09 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: On 22.07.2010 04:52, Paul Querna wrote: Ack-- I could re-tag with libtool 1.x, if we don't want to ship a modified apr-util. I always use an external expat it seems :( Thoughts? For the ASF release re-tag would be enough. There's a few people though, that already ran into the same problem with 2.2.15 (BZ49053). It's possible some distros might run buildconf before providing their source bundles, but it could also just have been those users themselves. The info given in the issue does not clarify this. Since the buildconf bug itself is not a regression and there are well known workarounds I would say re-tag and fix with 2.2.17. AIUI - this is a reroll, but the tag remains the same? If the source files in svn are nonvolatile, then going with libtool 1.x might be the ticket. +1 to reroll. The tag can stay the same. Don't know why Paul and me both used the wording re-tag when talking about a procedure that doesn't change the svn sources. So yes, I meant re-roll. re-rolled using libtool 1.x, tarballs in the same places. I'll bump up the end of the vote to end of day Saturday UTC if that helps more people try it out.
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On 22.07.2010 11:28, Paul Querna wrote: On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Rainer Jungrainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote: On 22.07.2010 07:46, Ruediger Pluem wrote: On 07/22/2010 06:10 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 7/21/2010 10:09 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: On 22.07.2010 04:52, Paul Querna wrote: Ack-- I could re-tag with libtool 1.x, if we don't want to ship a modified apr-util. I always use an external expat it seems :( Thoughts? For the ASF release re-tag would be enough. There's a few people though, that already ran into the same problem with 2.2.15 (BZ49053). It's possible some distros might run buildconf before providing their source bundles, but it could also just have been those users themselves. The info given in the issue does not clarify this. Since the buildconf bug itself is not a regression and there are well known workarounds I would say re-tag and fix with 2.2.17. AIUI - this is a reroll, but the tag remains the same? If the source files in svn are nonvolatile, then going with libtool 1.x might be the ticket. +1 to reroll. The tag can stay the same. Don't know why Paul and me both used the wording re-tag when talking about a procedure that doesn't change the svn sources. So yes, I meant re-roll. re-rolled using libtool 1.x, tarballs in the same places. EU mirror was updated quickly, but US mirror still shows the old files. New ones are dated 22-Jul-2010 09:23, httpd-2.2.16.tar.gz.md5 is: 7f33f2c8b213ad758c009ae46d2795ed *httpd-2.2.16.tar.gz Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Paul Querna p...@querna.org wrote: Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.16 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Your votes please; +/- 1 [+1] Release httpd-2.2.16 Vote closes at 02:00 UTC on Saturday July 24 2010. FTR, +1 Has been running on eris/harmonia just fine (svn.apache.org), seems happy and no new problems there. Thanks, Paul
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
builds and runs on Slackware 13.0 and 13.1 -- Res What does Windows have that Linux doesn't? - One hell of a lot of bugs!
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
Peanut Gallery vote: [+1] Release httpd-2.2.16 XP SP3, VC6 SDK 2003 R2 ... ~24 hours live w/ no problems seen XP SP3/Vista SP1, VC9 ... no problems noticed w/ light testing Server 2008 R2 (x64), SDK 7 ... no problems noticed w/ light testing Cheers Beers Gregg
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On 21.07.2010 20:45, Paul Querna wrote: Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.16 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Your votes please; +/- 1 [ ] Release httpd-2.2.16 Vote closes at 02:00 UTC on Saturday July 24 2010. Just a quick info in case someone else also runs into this: there's a problem with the builtin expat configure because buildconf.sh was run using libtool 2 but isn't really ready for this. It's a regression from 2.2.15, which has been rolled using libtool 1. Error message: .../configure: line 2409: syntax error near unexpected token `lt_decl_varnames,' .../configure: line 2409: `lt_if_append_uniq(lt_decl_varnames, SHELL, , ,' As far as I can see, the root cause is the following: libtool 2 split up the m4 macros into various files. The above error shows, that ltsugar.m4 hasn't been incorporated correctly. Looking at buildconf.sh in xml/expat, it assumes that libtoolize --copy copies the file in and then appends it to aclocal.m4. But libtoolize does *not* copy the file in. buildconf.sh runs libtoolize with --automake which in libtool 2 is simply an alias for --quiet. If one drops the flag, then libtoolize --copy happily informs us: libtoolize: You should add the contents of the following files to `aclocal.m4': libtoolize: `.../share/aclocal/ltoptions.m4' libtoolize: `.../share/aclocal/ltversion.m4' libtoolize: `.../share/aclocal/ltsugar.m4' libtoolize: `.../share/aclocal/lt~obsolete.m4' libtoolize: Consider adding `AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([m4])' to configure.in and libtoolize: rerunning libtoolize, to keep the correct libtool macros in-tree. libtoolize: Consider adding `-I m4' to ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS in Makefile.am. OK, so adding AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR(.) to configure.in, e.g. after the line AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR(conftools) indeed lets libtoolize copy the m4 files to the expat directory, where buildconf.sh expects them. Finally a little experiment shows, that all five m4 files should be copied into aclocal.m4: libtool.m4 ltsugar.m4 ltoptions.m4 ltversion.m4 lt~obsolete.m4 I expect that's also the reason for BZ49053. Side note: configure.in in apr contain the line eval `grep ^shlibpath_var=[[A-Z_]]*$ $apr_builddir/libtool` but libtool is only generated when AC_OUTPUT is called at the end of the file. So the grep has to fail, and indeed: grep: can't open .../httpd-2.2.16/srclib/apr/libtool The shlibpath_var is detected correctly nevertheless :) Regards, Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On 22.07.2010 04:17, Rainer Jung wrote: On 21.07.2010 20:45, Paul Querna wrote: Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.16 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Your votes please; +/- 1 [ ] Release httpd-2.2.16 Vote closes at 02:00 UTC on Saturday July 24 2010. Just a quick info in case someone else also runs into this: there's a problem with the builtin expat configure because buildconf.sh was run using libtool 2 but isn't really ready for this. It's a regression from 2.2.15, which has been rolled using libtool 1. Suggested patch: http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/expat-libtool2.patch Regards, Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
Ack-- I could re-tag with libtool 1.x, if we don't want to ship a modified apr-util. I always use an external expat it seems :( Thoughts? On Jul 21, 2010, at 7:42 PM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote: On 22.07.2010 04:17, Rainer Jung wrote: On 21.07.2010 20:45, Paul Querna wrote: Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.16 are available at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Your votes please; +/- 1 [ ] Release httpd-2.2.16 Vote closes at 02:00 UTC on Saturday July 24 2010. Just a quick info in case someone else also runs into this: there's a problem with the builtin expat configure because buildconf.sh was run using libtool 2 but isn't really ready for this. It's a regression from 2.2.15, which has been rolled using libtool 1. Suggested patch: http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/expat-libtool2.patch Regards, Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On 22.07.2010 04:52, Paul Querna wrote: Ack-- I could re-tag with libtool 1.x, if we don't want to ship a modified apr-util. I always use an external expat it seems :( Thoughts? For the ASF release re-tag would be enough. There's a few people though, that already ran into the same problem with 2.2.15 (BZ49053). It's possible some distros might run buildconf before providing their source bundles, but it could also just have been those users themselves. The info given in the issue does not clarify this. Since the buildconf bug itself is not a regression and there are well known workarounds I would say re-tag and fix with 2.2.17. Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On 7/21/2010 10:09 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: On 22.07.2010 04:52, Paul Querna wrote: Ack-- I could re-tag with libtool 1.x, if we don't want to ship a modified apr-util. I always use an external expat it seems :( Thoughts? For the ASF release re-tag would be enough. There's a few people though, that already ran into the same problem with 2.2.15 (BZ49053). It's possible some distros might run buildconf before providing their source bundles, but it could also just have been those users themselves. The info given in the issue does not clarify this. Since the buildconf bug itself is not a regression and there are well known workarounds I would say re-tag and fix with 2.2.17. AIUI - this is a reroll, but the tag remains the same? If the source files in svn are nonvolatile, then going with libtool 1.x might be the ticket.
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd 2.2.16
On 07/22/2010 06:10 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 7/21/2010 10:09 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: On 22.07.2010 04:52, Paul Querna wrote: Ack-- I could re-tag with libtool 1.x, if we don't want to ship a modified apr-util. I always use an external expat it seems :( Thoughts? For the ASF release re-tag would be enough. There's a few people though, that already ran into the same problem with 2.2.15 (BZ49053). It's possible some distros might run buildconf before providing their source bundles, but it could also just have been those users themselves. The info given in the issue does not clarify this. Since the buildconf bug itself is not a regression and there are well known workarounds I would say re-tag and fix with 2.2.17. AIUI - this is a reroll, but the tag remains the same? If the source files in svn are nonvolatile, then going with libtool 1.x might be the ticket. +1 to reroll. The tag can stay the same. Regards Rüdiger
