Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
On Nov 9, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Paul Querna wrote: Hello dev@, I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th. +1 I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases). +1 I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but we need to start cleaning those issues out. +1 Thx!
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Graham Leggett wrote: Paul Querna wrote: I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th. +1 I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases). Major problem; don't do this. You are putting 1.4.x code into a release which then ends up causing APR 1.4.0 to break its binary ABI rules. That is just not kosher. Some README or release notes observing that the best results can be obtained with a checkout and build of the as-yet-unreleased apr 1.4.x trunk is sufficient. If you want to 'test the bundling' - use a released apr please? I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but we need to start cleaning those issues out. :) Is there a need to bundle APR at all? Agreed +1 if APR is not bundled (this is alpha, after all).
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: Graham Leggett wrote: Paul Querna wrote: I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th. +1 I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases). Major problem; don't do this. You are putting 1.4.x code into a release which then ends up causing APR 1.4.0 to break its binary ABI rules. That is just not kosher. Some README or release notes observing that the best results can be obtained with a checkout and build of the as-yet-unreleased apr 1.4.x trunk is sufficient. If you want to 'test the bundling' - use a released apr please? No released APR works. Under our own versioning guidelines, we can and will break compatibilty inside 2.3.x, so I don't see the issue created by using a bundled APR. I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but we need to start cleaning those issues out. :) Is there a need to bundle APR at all? Agreed +1 if APR is not bundled (this is alpha, after all). If APR had a 1.4.0 released, it would be viable, but it doesn't.
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Paul Querna wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: Graham Leggett wrote: Paul Querna wrote: I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th. +1 I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases). Major problem; don't do this. You are putting 1.4.x code into a release which then ends up causing APR 1.4.0 to break its binary ABI rules. That is just not kosher. Some README or release notes observing that the best results can be obtained with a checkout and build of the as-yet-unreleased apr 1.4.x trunk is sufficient. If you want to 'test the bundling' - use a released apr please? No released APR works. It works, but isn't code-complete or bug free; what else is new? Under our own versioning guidelines, we can and will break compatibilty inside 2.3.x, so I don't see the issue created by using a bundled APR. I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but we need to start cleaning those issues out. :) Is there a need to bundle APR at all? Agreed +1 if APR is not bundled (this is alpha, after all). If APR had a 1.4.0 released, it would be viable, but it doesn't. Which is altogether irrelevant. http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html is the contract. By shipping (installing to /usr/lib/ or /usr/local/lib/, etc) you have started the clock. hat role=chair You also ask the HTTPD project to release apr 1.4.0-dev, something which the APR project hasn't indicated they are ready for. There is nothing technically impossible about that, and you and the +1 vote crowd attest that you've reviewed the additions for soundness and all other incoming code concerns. And I don't doubt this has happened, knowing the overlap between the lists. But do understand this is a release of APR, as the ASF and applicable law all differentiate that from 'work product' (e.g. svn contents). /hat I just suggest that tagging 1.4.0 at the same time is very little trouble if that's what you 'require', and let the results of that bundle alpha swim or fall based on the results of a 1.4.0 release vote at apr.
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:14 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: Paul Querna wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: Graham Leggett wrote: Paul Querna wrote: I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th. +1 I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases). Major problem; don't do this. You are putting 1.4.x code into a release which then ends up causing APR 1.4.0 to break its binary ABI rules. That is just not kosher. Some README or release notes observing that the best results can be obtained with a checkout and build of the as-yet-unreleased apr 1.4.x trunk is sufficient. If you want to 'test the bundling' - use a released apr please? No released APR works. It works, but isn't code-complete or bug free; what else is new? APR 1.3.x does not contain APIs used by httpd 2.3.3. Those APIs are added in APR 1.4.x. That is the root of the problem. 'does not work' == does not compile.
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:14 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: Paul Querna wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: Graham Leggett wrote: Paul Querna wrote: I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th. +1 I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases). Major problem; don't do this. You are putting 1.4.x code into a release which then ends up causing APR 1.4.0 to break its binary ABI rules. That is just not kosher. Some README or release notes observing that the best results can be obtained with a checkout and build of the as-yet-unreleased apr 1.4.x trunk is sufficient. If you want to 'test the bundling' - use a released apr please? No released APR works. It works, but isn't code-complete or bug free; what else is new? Under our own versioning guidelines, we can and will break compatibilty inside 2.3.x, so I don't see the issue created by using a bundled APR. I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but we need to start cleaning those issues out. :) Is there a need to bundle APR at all? Agreed +1 if APR is not bundled (this is alpha, after all). If APR had a 1.4.0 released, it would be viable, but it doesn't. Which is altogether irrelevant. http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html is the contract. By shipping (installing to /usr/lib/ or /usr/local/lib/, etc) you have started the clock. I'm missing something... As long as this snapshot of APR says 1.4.0-dev, the versioning requirements are moot. Even the APR project will need to release something non-GA that hopefully looks a lot like the eventual first 1.4 GA release, but without version constraints until feedback from outside of the project is received. hat role=chair You also ask the HTTPD project to release apr 1.4.0-dev, something which the APR project hasn't indicated they are ready for. APR will never release -dev, right? And as far as svn checkouts or third-party snapshots, there's no promise that one APR 1.4.0-dev looks like another 1.4.0-dev. There is nothing technically impossible about that, and you and the +1 vote crowd attest that you've reviewed the additions for soundness and all other incoming code concerns. And I don't doubt this has happened, knowing the overlap between the lists. But do understand this is a release of APR, as the ASF and applicable law all differentiate that from 'work product' (e.g. svn contents). /hat I just suggest that tagging 1.4.0 at the same time is very little trouble if that's what you 'require', and let the results of that bundle alpha swim or fall based on the results of a 1.4.0 release vote at apr.
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Nick Kew wrote:
Graham Leggett wrote:
Is there a need to bundle APR at all?
Yep, let's draw a line under that. APR is a dependency,
not a component.
I assume that there still is a mechanism corresponding to
--with-included-apr? On a distro with bundled APR version X that httpd
dislikes (or more commonly, that contains bugs that has been fixed in
newer releases that aren't considered a security update for the
distro) I find it very convenient to be able to install httpd without
having to jump through hoops pointing out which APR
devel/runtime-stuff it should use.
So, while APR (and stuff) are indeed dependencies I find
--build-with-known-good-dependency-stuff very useful.
/Nikke
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}.umu.se | ni...@acc.umu.se
---
DOS: Tells a computer what to do with itself!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Niklas Edmundsson ni...@acc.umu.se wrote: On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Nick Kew wrote: Graham Leggett wrote: Is there a need to bundle APR at all? Yep, let's draw a line under that. APR is a dependency, not a component. I assume that there still is a mechanism corresponding to --with-included-apr? On a distro with bundled APR version X that httpd dislikes (or more commonly, that contains bugs that has been fixed in newer releases that aren't considered a security update for the distro) I find it very convenient to be able to install httpd without having to jump through hoops pointing out which APR devel/runtime-stuff it should use. So, while APR (and stuff) are indeed dependencies I find --build-with-known-good-dependency-stuff very useful. yes, we will have an httpd-deps-x.y.z.tar.bz2 alongside the normal release files.
intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Hello dev@, I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th. I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases). I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but we need to start cleaning those issues out. Thanks, Paul
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Paul Querna wrote: I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th. I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases). I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but we need to start cleaning those issues out. Is there a need to bundle APR at all? Otherwise +1. Regards, Graham --
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
On Nov 9, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th.
I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a
release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases).
I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues,
but
we need to start cleaning those issues out.
+1
Is there a need to bundle APR at all?
Not sure that we do... we could do as Subversion does, and release a
dependencies tarball with srclib/{apr,apr-util,pcre} from a known
release.
S.
Otherwise +1.
Regards,
Graham
--
--
Sander Temme
scte...@apache.org
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Paul Querna wrote: I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th. +1 ciao... -- Lars Eilebrecht l...@eilebrecht.net
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Sander Temme scte...@apache.org wrote:
On Nov 9, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th.
I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a
release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases).
I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but
we need to start cleaning those issues out.
+1
Is there a need to bundle APR at all?
Not sure that we do... we could do as Subversion does, and release a
dependencies tarball with srclib/{apr,apr-util,pcre} from a known release.
Yes, we already have a separate -deps tarball. I hacked that into the
last alpha release :-)
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Graham Leggett wrote: Is there a need to bundle APR at all? Yep, let's draw a line under that. APR is a dependency, not a component. Otherwise +1. MeToo. -- Nick Kew
