Re: bash bug (was Re: mod_python 3.2.7 available for testing)
Sébastien Arnaud wrote: Hi, I would like to report: +1 Gentoo 2005.1 (amd64), Apache 2.0.55-prefork, Python 2.4.2 After replacing the troubling line (line 3038, configure): from: MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | sed s/\\//g` to (Deron's 1st suggestion): MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | sed 's///g' ` I guess now it's up to you to decide if you want to integrate the patch or if you want to leave it as is for this release ;) In the interest of actually *releasing* something I think this should wait for a future bug fix release. In the interim the fix is simple enough that someone on an affected platform can manually change configure.in. It's not an ideal solution, but then neither is an endless series of beta and release candidates. ;) I'll create a JIRA issue so this doesn't get lost. Jim
[jira] Updated: (MODPYTHON-122) configure fails when using bash 3.1.x
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-122?page=all ] Jim Gallacher updated MODPYTHON-122: Description: A bug in bash 3.1 causes configure to fail. This has been reported on recent versions of Gentoo and and discussed on the mod_python mailing list: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118948 http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-January/019965.html http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-January/019969.html According to the gentoo bug report, the problem in configure.in is the double backslash escape sequence in the line: MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | sed s/\\//g` Changing this to: MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | sed s/\//g` fixes it for bash 3.1. I wonder why mod_python is using \\ since the gentoo fix seems to work ok with bash 3.0 (and GNU sed) just as well. Is it there to support other shells, other sed versions, older bash versions... ?? I suggest mod_python adopts the gentoo fix, or avoids the problem altogether by using tr. eg. MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | tr -d ''` was: A bug in bash 3.1 causes configure to fail. This has been report on recent versions of Gentoo and and deicussed on the mod_python mailing list: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118948 http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-January/019965.html http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-January/019969.html According to the gentoo bug report, the problem in configure.in is the double backslash escape sequence in the line: MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | sed s/\\//g` Changing this to: MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | sed s/\//g` fixes it for bash 3.1. I wonder why we are using \\ since the gentoo fix seems to work ok with bash 3.0 (and GNU sed) on my system just as well. Is it there to support other shells, other sed versions, older bash versions... ?? I suggest we either adopt the gentoo fix, or avoid the problem altogether by using tr. eg. MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | tr -d ''` configure fails when using bash 3.1.x - Key: MODPYTHON-122 URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-122 Project: mod_python Type: Bug Components: core Versions: 3.1.4, 3.2 Environment: Any platform using bash 3.1.x Reporter: Jim Gallacher Assignee: Jim Gallacher Priority: Minor A bug in bash 3.1 causes configure to fail. This has been reported on recent versions of Gentoo and and discussed on the mod_python mailing list: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118948 http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-January/019965.html http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-January/019969.html According to the gentoo bug report, the problem in configure.in is the double backslash escape sequence in the line: MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | sed s/\\//g` Changing this to: MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | sed s/\//g` fixes it for bash 3.1. I wonder why mod_python is using \\ since the gentoo fix seems to work ok with bash 3.0 (and GNU sed) just as well. Is it there to support other shells, other sed versions, older bash versions... ?? I suggest mod_python adopts the gentoo fix, or avoids the problem altogether by using tr. eg. MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | tr -d ''` -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
Re: mod_python 3.2.7 available for testing
OK so my core group vote is +1 for this release. It has been tested on a wide array of OSes, both threaded and forked MPMs, Python 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4, so I guess it's okay. A threaded test on MacOSX and Solaris would have been great but maybe the recommended MPM on those platform is the forked one, so we don't have to worry about those. Regards, Nicolas 2006/2/7, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote: I think we have enough +1's. (If someone could tally them up in a single e-mail, that'd be great.) Should we start a core-group vote, or wait some more? On the bash issue - I think we can leave it as is, the affected distros will just have to maintain a patch in their build systems. Let's vote. Here is the test summary: +1 Debian (sid), Apache 2.0.55-prefork, Python 2.3.5 +1 Debian (sarge), Apache 2.0.54-worker, Python 2.3.5 +1 Debian (sarge), Apache 2.0.54-prefork, Python 2.3.5 +1 Debian (testing, aka, etch), Apache 2.0.55-worker, Python 2.3.5 +1 Fedora Core 4, Linux 2.6.15, Apache 2.0.54, Python 2.4.1 +1 FreeBSD 4.9 , Apache 2.0.50 (prefork), Python 2.3.4 +1 FreeBSD 4.9 , Apache 2.0.55 (prefork), Python 2.4.2 +1 MacOSX 10.4.4 PPC, Apache-2.0.55-prefork, Python-2.4.2 +1 Slackware 10.1, Apache 2.0.55 (mpm-prefork), Python 2.4 +1 Solaris 10 Sparc, Apache-2.0.55-prefork, Python-2.4.2 +1 Ubuntu 5.10 Breezy (amd64), Apache 2.0.54-worker, Python 2.4.2 +1 Windows 2000 SP4, Apache/2.0.55 + Python/2.2.3 +1 Windows 2000 SP4, Apache/2.0.55 + ActivePython/2.3.5 +1 Windows XP SP2, Apache/2.0.55 + ActivePython/2.4.2 With configure fixed manually to deal with bash bug: +1 Gentoo 2005.1 (amd64), Apache 2.0.55-prefork, Python 2.4.2 Plus we have the following tests from the svn revision which corresponds to 3.2.7: +1 trunk rev 374709 FreeBSD 6.0 Apache 2.0.55-prefork, Python 2.4.2 Jim
Re: mod_python 3.2.7 available for testing
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote: I assumed we would have a separate thread for the core vote, but what the heck. :) +1 is my core vote. +1 from me as well. Grisha
Re: mod_python 3.2.7 available for testing
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote: On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote: I assumed we would have a separate thread for the core vote, but what the heck. :) +1 is my core vote. +1 from me as well. When the core group votes for a release candidate, is it a consensus vote or a majority vote? To quote from the Apache voting guidelines, An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3 binding +1 votes and no vetos. An action item requiring majority approval must receive at least 3 binding +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes (i.e., a majority with a minimum quorum of three positive votes). My interpretation of the rest of guideline is that a consensus vote is only required for actual code changes. Perhaps we should set our own policy for a vote on a release candidate? See http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html. If this is a majority vote, then the polls are closed and 3.2.7 is the winner. :) (And I didn't even use a calulator this time. ;) ) Jim
[jira] Commented: (MODPYTHON-122) configure fails when using bash 3.1.x
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-122?page=comments#action_12365490 ] Graham Dumpleton commented on MODPYTHON-122: Or as someone else suggested, maybe: MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | sed 's///g'` or: MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | sed 's/[]//g'` The single quotes should be enough to protect it without needing a slash. configure fails when using bash 3.1.x - Key: MODPYTHON-122 URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-122 Project: mod_python Type: Bug Components: core Versions: 3.2, 3.1.4 Environment: Any platform using bash 3.1.x Reporter: Jim Gallacher Assignee: Jim Gallacher Priority: Minor A bug in bash 3.1 causes configure to fail. This has been reported on recent versions of Gentoo and and discussed on the mod_python mailing list: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118948 http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-January/019965.html http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-January/019969.html According to the gentoo bug report, the problem in configure.in is the double backslash escape sequence in the line: MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | sed s/\\//g` Changing this to: MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | sed s/\//g` fixes it for bash 3.1. I wonder why mod_python is using \\ since the gentoo fix seems to work ok with bash 3.0 (and GNU sed) just as well. Is it there to support other shells, other sed versions, older bash versions... ?? I suggest mod_python adopts the gentoo fix, or avoids the problem altogether by using tr. eg. MP_VERSION=`echo $MP_VERSION | tr -d ''` -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
Re: mod_python 3.2.7 available for testing
On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:32 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote: When the core group votes for a release candidate, is it a consensus vote or a majority vote? To quote from the Apache voting guidelines, An action item requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3 binding +1 votes and no vetos. An action item requiring majority approval must receive at least 3 binding +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes (i.e., a majority with a minimum quorum of three positive votes). Release votes are majority votes. That prevents some forms of voting abuse and allows progress to be made even when it isn't perfect. My interpretation of the rest of guideline is that a consensus vote is only required for actual code changes. Perhaps we should set our own policy for a vote on a release candidate? See http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html. If this is a majority vote, then the polls are closed and 3.2.7 is the winner. :) (And I didn't even use a calulator this time. ;) ) We usually wait for 72 hours or until all the voters vote, since some times it only takes one discovered failure to cause everyone else to change their votes. Roy
Re: mod_python 3.2.7 available for testing
Nicolas Lehuen wrote .. OK so my core group vote is +1 for this release. It has been tested on a wide array of OSes, both threaded and forked MPMs, Python 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4, so I guess it's okay. A threaded test on MacOSX and Solaris would have been great but maybe the recommended MPM on those platform is the forked one, so we don't have to worry about those. My vote is redundant again, but I can add one of the configurations that Nicolas wanted to see: +1 MacOSX 10.3.9 PPC, Apache-2.0.55-worker, Python-2.3 I'll also say +1 as core group vote. This means all 4 have voted as +1 and no need to wait 72 hours now to see if I would veto it. I'm too busy anyway, finding new features/improvements to add to JIRA, to look at 3.2.7 in particular to find bugs. ;-) Graham Regards, Nicolas 2006/2/7, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote: I think we have enough +1's. (If someone could tally them up in a single e-mail, that'd be great.) Should we start a core-group vote, or wait some more? On the bash issue - I think we can leave it as is, the affected distros will just have to maintain a patch in their build systems. Let's vote. Here is the test summary: +1 Debian (sid), Apache 2.0.55-prefork, Python 2.3.5 +1 Debian (sarge), Apache 2.0.54-worker, Python 2.3.5 +1 Debian (sarge), Apache 2.0.54-prefork, Python 2.3.5 +1 Debian (testing, aka, etch), Apache 2.0.55-worker, Python 2.3.5 +1 Fedora Core 4, Linux 2.6.15, Apache 2.0.54, Python 2.4.1 +1 FreeBSD 4.9 , Apache 2.0.50 (prefork), Python 2.3.4 +1 FreeBSD 4.9 , Apache 2.0.55 (prefork), Python 2.4.2 +1 MacOSX 10.4.4 PPC, Apache-2.0.55-prefork, Python-2.4.2 +1 Slackware 10.1, Apache 2.0.55 (mpm-prefork), Python 2.4 +1 Solaris 10 Sparc, Apache-2.0.55-prefork, Python-2.4.2 +1 Ubuntu 5.10 Breezy (amd64), Apache 2.0.54-worker, Python 2.4.2 +1 Windows 2000 SP4, Apache/2.0.55 + Python/2.2.3 +1 Windows 2000 SP4, Apache/2.0.55 + ActivePython/2.3.5 +1 Windows XP SP2, Apache/2.0.55 + ActivePython/2.4.2 With configure fixed manually to deal with bash bug: +1 Gentoo 2005.1 (amd64), Apache 2.0.55-prefork, Python 2.4.2 Plus we have the following tests from the svn revision which corresponds to 3.2.7: +1 trunk rev 374709 FreeBSD 6.0 Apache 2.0.55-prefork, Python 2.4.2 Jim
[jira] Created: (MODPYTHON-124) Improvements associated with the req.ap_auth_type attribute.
Improvements associated with the req.ap_auth_type attribute. Key: MODPYTHON-124 URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-124 Project: mod_python Type: Improvement Components: core Versions: 3.3 Reporter: Graham Dumpleton The req.ap_auth_type attribute is set to the authentication type corresponding to the type of authentication processing successfully carried out in respect of a request. For example, if one has Apache configuration: AuthType Basic AuthName Restricted Files AuthUserFile /usr/local/apache/passwd/passwords Require valid-user it is expected that the request uses basic authentication header as appropriate. These headers will be dealt with by inbuilt Apache core module. Upon successful authentication, the Apache core module will set req.ap_auth_type attribute to be Basic and set req.user to the user ID of the logged in user. If instead Apache support for digest authentication was used, eg: AuthType Digest ... then req.ap_auth_type attribute will be set to Digest. If authentication was not requested, ie., no AuthType directive, the req.ap_auth_type is set to Python None. The intent is that you should be able to implement authentication handlers in mod_python using PythonAuthenHandler, but you can't actually do this correctly at the moment as there are a few things missing. Firstly, in order to trigger the PythonAuthenHandler, you must still define the AuthType/AuthName/Require directives. In order to ensure that our authentication handler is triggered and not the builtin ones or some other one, the AuthType directive should specify a string other than Basic or Digest. This would be a name we choose and can basically be anything. For example, you might choose a descriptive name like Python-Basic-DBM to denote basic authentication is used against a DBM database but using the Python authentication handler. AuthType Python-Basic-DBM AuthName Web Application Require valid-user PythonAuthenHandler basicdbmauth PythonOption basicdbmauth.UserDatabase /.../users.dbm When the authentication handler in basicdbmauth is called, the req.ap_auth_type field is still None. This is because authentication hasn't succeed yet. In terms of being able to implement the authentication handler correctly, the first problem is that there is no way to access the actual value associated with the AuthType directive. This needs to be consulted to determine if the authentication handler should actually do anything. Second is that the value associated with the AuthName directive can't be determined either, something which may influence against which database authentication should be done. Thus first lot of changes that need to be made are that req object needs to have two new methods called get_auth_type() and get_auth_name(). These will map to the Apache API functions called ap_auth_type() and ap_auth_name(). Note that ap_auth_type() is returning a different value to req.ap_auth_type. With those two functions, authentication handler can then be written as: def authenhandler(req): if req.get_auth_type() != Python-Basic-DBM: return apache.DECLINED realm = req.get_auth_name() # Do all the processing of Authorization header and # validate user etc. If not okay, return appropriate error # status. If okay, keep going. req.user = ... from header req.ap_auth_type = Python-Basic-DBM return apache.OK As well as returning apache.OK, convention is to set req.user and req.ap_auth_type. This is where the final problem occurs. That is that req.ap_auth_type is read only and cannot actually be set as necessary. Thus in addition to req.get_auth_type(), req.get_auth_name(), need to make req.ap_auth_type writable. Having made these changes it would then actually be possible to write authentication handlers correctly, ie., whereby they correctly look at AuthType etc to see whether they should be applied. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
