Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Several 2rd-party modules (mod_fcgid, mod_fastcgi, mod_perl, mod_watch etc.) are given issues with 2.2.6 on Windows. Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 22:20 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Ummm hrmm: A hurry backport is causing this and there is hardly tested in real live. Hopefully ASF comes with a patch soon. So you know what's causing this? Please point out the exact hurry backport so we can look there. And again, WHAT OTHER 3rd party modules are having problems?? Can you provide ANY FURTHER information other than cryptic its not working messages followed by ASF hates Windows users comments?? If we *knew* what the problems were, we'd try like heck to fix 'em. I know Bill looked hard and long, but had no luck, mostly because the amount of real concrete data was woefully lacking. On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Steffen wrote: Better we stop this thread. See the post at: http://www.apachelounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php? p=8691 , please do not reply to that post. Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 21:47 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review On Sep 6, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Steffen wrote: I'm assuming the we is you, right? It is not just me. We are a team and of course the users. Just as an example the other post from me here which is a report from an other webmaster. I report here test results from the Apache Windows Community from the Apache Lounge, mostly I receive them by mail. You said that we need to: advise the users not to use 2.2.6 because is not compatible with some mods which, afaik, is not the case. You reported issues with mod_fcgid, which may be true, but that hasn't been confirmed by anyone else, nor do I see reports to support the some mods statement as well. Unless, of course, the cryptic phrase An other report actually means The below is a report from someone else who is also seeing an issue instead of Oh, by the way, I also tried this personally and I see that mod_cgi is working OK for me.. With all this being the case, I can't see holding up a release nor can I see us (us being the ASF) making some blanket statement that Win32 users should not use 2.2.6 because it is not compatible with some mods... If we had some more supporting data for that, then maybe... Maybe we have to patch 2.2.6 to get it error-free. Well, there is the patches directory that, if we discover a bug, allows people to download the patch and rebuild. Of course, this all means tracking down and discovering the bug with some detailed debugging info rather than a it doesn't work :)
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Any more info how you got it to work with apxs? This works for me: C:\ C:\Apache2\bin\apxs -llibhttpd -D APACHE2 -p -IC:\Temp\mod_fcgid.2.1 -o mod_fcgid.so -c mod_fcgid.c fcgid_bridge.c fcgid_conf.c fcgid_pm_main.c arch\win32\fcgid_pm_win.c arch\win32\fcgid_proc_win.c arch\win32\fcgid_proctbl_win.c fcgid_protocol.c fcgid_spawn_ctl.c fcgid_bucket.c fcgid_filter.c (all on one line). -- best regards, Randy
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Yeah I figured it out a bit later and it indeed seems broke. Not sure whats wrong though I posted a debug log + user dump yesterday. On 9/8/07, Randy Kobes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Any more info how you got it to work with apxs? This works for me: C:\ C:\Apache2\bin\apxs -llibhttpd -D APACHE2 -p -IC:\Temp\mod_fcgid.2.1 -o mod_fcgid.so -c mod_fcgid.c fcgid_bridge.c fcgid_conf.c fcgid_pm_main.c arch\win32\fcgid_pm_win.c arch\win32\fcgid_proc_win.c arch\win32\fcgid_proctbl_win.c fcgid_protocol.c fcgid_spawn_ctl.c fcgid_bucket.c fcgid_filter.c (all on one line). -- best regards, Randy -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Yeah I figured it out a bit later and it indeed seems broke. Not sure whats wrong though I posted a debug log + user dump yesterday. The debug log was unfortunately not very interesting, since it wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary at the time you interrupted the process. It's also not quite decipherable, you would have to build at minimum with /Oy- and ideally with /Zi for your compile flags, /debug (to create pdb's also for third party modules) to the linker. And to let Dr Watson dig through all the particularities of your system libraries, you can use WinDbg (a free download from MS) which has a very nice feature; you set up a local SymStore that can suck down the .pdb's of almost any Microsoft shipped .dll through an envvar that looks like; _NT_SYMBOL_PATH=srv*G:\symstore*http://msdl.microsoft.com/download/symbols ...like magic your crash dumps will include all backtraces through the win32 dll's and nt kernel. We do know something more about this flaw at this point; you'll find most of the details at http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43329 Thankfully Tom's created this incident after (correctly) diagnosing what libfcgid does on Win32. It's trivial to solve, as Tom noted and I had further corrected in that incident, however it reverts to existing broken behavior with respect to APR. Apparently mod_fcgid has long assumed that invalid handles are it's clue that it should run. Foolish Win32-ish assumption; and the way it behaves when compiled under VC6 and VC8 seem to significantly disagree. This might be because VC8 tries to be more clever about repairing broken stdhandles for console applications. The bottom lines are these; the APR library exists to keep applications consistent - the basic behavior is that fd's 0, 1, 2 (Win32's STD HANDLE values) inherit the parent's pipes if not explicitly defined; some apps fail miserably when runing in a service context with a sub-par set of handles (e.g. cmd.exe for one, while on unix a program will open a file only to discover that fd occupies slot 0, 1, or 2 and becomes corrupted). So the question becomes; fix libfcgid? And/or; add an explicit and very platform independent feature to NOT inherit undefined handles from the parent to child process? If this feature were added, it would be possible to say NO_PIPE to all three handles, and on unix have fd's 0/1/2 all unused, on windows have them all contain INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE's. I'm sure there is a valid use case for this across platforms. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Any more info how you got it to work with apxs? ~ Jorge On 9/7/07, Issac Goldstand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: win32/vc8 +1 (not that it makes much of a difference at this point :)) I've gotten mod_fcgid built against it (though apxs-win32-0.6 is still not doing -llibhttpd -llibapr-1 and -llibaprutil-1 by default) I'm not quite sure what the original issue is there, and I've no clue how to actually use it, but if someone wants to spoonfeed me instructions on how to make it crash, I'd be happy to take a look (or at least post a backtrace, if I don't have time to investigate myself) Issac Issac Goldstand wrote: I'll try it as soon as it shows up. William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Issac Goldstand wrote: Uh. Maybe I've lost it, but where's the source for apr-iconv in http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/httpd-2.2.6-win32-src.zip? All I get is an .rc file and a couple of .deps and .maks I just pulled an OH SHIT moment myself building on x86_64 windows... ... there are -r2.zip packages up now, and I just updated the site svn, but I presume Jim hadn't pulled that site update to live so I'm leaving it for him. C.f. http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2.2.6-win32-src-r2.zip ...not quite arrived from our staging to live server yet. Bill -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Hmmz still getting link errors :( --- S:\source\x86\modules\mod_fcgid.2.1apxs -llibhttpd -llibapr-1 -llibaprutil-1 -c -i -a mod_fcgid.c cl /nologo /MD /W3 /O2 /D WIN32 /D _WINDOWS /D NDEBUG-IS:\httpd- 2.2\include /c /Fomod_fcgid. lo mod_fcgid.c mod_fcgid.c link kernel32.lib /nologo /subsystem:windows /dll /machine:I386 /libpath:S:\httpd-2.2\lib /out:mod_fcgid.so libhttpd.lib libapr-1.lib libaprutil-1.lib mod_fcgid.lo Creating library mod_fcgid.lib and object mod_fcgid.exp mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _merge_fcgid_server_config mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _create_fcgid_server_config mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _create_fcgid_dir_config mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_access_authoritative mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_access_info mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_authorizer_authoritative mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_authorizer_info mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_authenticator_authoritative mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_authenticator_info mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_max_requests_per_process mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_php_fix_pathinfo_enable mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_wrapper_config mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _add_default_env_vars mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_ipc_comm_timeout mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_ipc_connect_timeout mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_output_buffersize mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_min_class_process mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_max_class_process mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_max_process mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_termination_score mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_spawn_score mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_spawnscore_uplimit mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_shmpath mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_socketpath mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_proc_lifetime mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_zombie_scan_interval mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_error_scan_interval mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_busy_scan_interval mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_busy_timeout mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_idle_scan_interval mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _set_idle_timeout mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol _bridge_request referenced in function _fcgid_handler mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol _get_wrapper_info referenced in function _fcgid_handler mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol _get_authenticator_info referenced in function _mod_fcgid_authenticator mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol _get_authorizer_info referenced in function _mod_fcgid_authorizer mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol _get_access_info referenced in function _mod_fcgid_check_access mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol _procmgr_child_init referenced in function_initialize_child mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol _proctable_child_init referenced in function _initialize_child mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol _procmgr_post_config referenced in function _fcgid_init mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol _proctable_post_config referenced in function _fcgid_init mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol _get_php_fix_pathinfo_enable referenced in function _fcgid_init mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol _fcgid_filter referenced in function _register_hooks mod_fcgid.so : fatal error LNK1120: 42 unresolved externals apxs:Error: Command failed with rc=6291456 --- Oh well, I gave it my best. On 9/7/07, Issac Goldstand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pass -llibhttpd -llibapr-1 -llibaprutil-1 before -c mod_fgid.c ... Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Any more info how you got it to work with apxs? ~ Jorge On 9/7/07, *Issac Goldstand* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: win32/vc8 +1 (not that it makes much of a difference at this point :)) I've gotten mod_fcgid built against it (though apxs-win32-0.6 is still not doing -llibhttpd -llibapr-1 and -llibaprutil-1 by default) I'm not quite sure what the original issue is there, and I've no clue
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
The site is updated and mirrors are on the final stages of syncing up. The announcement will be going out in a coupla hours. Thanks to all!
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
win32/vc8 +1 (not that it makes much of a difference at this point :)) I've gotten mod_fcgid built against it (though apxs-win32-0.6 is still not doing -llibhttpd -llibapr-1 and -llibaprutil-1 by default) I'm not quite sure what the original issue is there, and I've no clue how to actually use it, but if someone wants to spoonfeed me instructions on how to make it crash, I'd be happy to take a look (or at least post a backtrace, if I don't have time to investigate myself) Issac Issac Goldstand wrote: I'll try it as soon as it shows up. William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Issac Goldstand wrote: Uh. Maybe I've lost it, but where's the source for apr-iconv in http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/httpd-2.2.6-win32-src.zip? All I get is an .rc file and a couple of .deps and .maks I just pulled an OH SHIT moment myself building on x86_64 windows... ... there are -r2.zip packages up now, and I just updated the site svn, but I presume Jim hadn't pulled that site update to live so I'm leaving it for him. C.f. http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2.2.6-win32-src-r2.zip ...not quite arrived from our staging to live server yet. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Hmmz still getting link errors :( --- S:\source\x86\modules\mod_fcgid.2.1apxs -llibhttpd -llibapr-1 -llibaprutil-1 -c -i -a mod_fcgid.c cl /nologo /MD /W3 /O2 /D WIN32 /D _WINDOWS /D NDEBUG-IS:\httpd- 2.2\include /c /Fomod_fcgid. lo mod_fcgid.c mod_fcgid.c link kernel32.lib /nologo /subsystem:windows /dll /machine:I386 /libpath:S:\httpd-2.2\lib /out:mod_fcgid.so libhttpd.lib libapr-1.lib libaprutil-1.libmod_fcgid.lo Creating library mod_fcgid.lib and object mod_fcgid.exp mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _merge_fcgid_server_config That's bizare - most any author would set these up as static's within their modules since there is no reason to export them (or attempt to bind to an exported symbol. Either way, I suspect mod_fcgid.c has more source files than the single module source, based on these emits. (Usually it would scream about exported symbol being imported). While on the subject, if this depends on a libfcgid, you probably need to bind to that lib, too.
mod_fcgid dump files (formerly [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review)
Well since after messing about with mod_fcgid a bit I finally got it to compile. I tried printenv.pl with this configuration: LoadModule fcgid_module modules/mod_fcgid.so Location /fcgid SetHandler fcgid-script Options ExecCGI allow from all /Location as by the doc here: http://fastcgi.coremail.cn/configuration.htm#regular%20fastcgi when the same script is used in the normal cgi bin it works as expected :) but under mod_fcgid it doesn't. error_log: [Fri Sep 07 18:08:09 2007] [error] [client 192.168.1.4 ] Premature end of script headers: printenv.pl user.dmp and drwtsn32.log are here: http://users.skynet.be/jorge/dump_files_mod_fcgid.zip I used http://httpd.apache.org/dev/debugging.html to get them. If there is something wrong with the dump file please forgive me since this is my first time. -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Ok basic example as stated here: http://fastcgi.coremail.cn/configuration.htm#regular%20fastcgi makes the server spit out these again: [Fri Sep 07 17:49:51 2007] [error] [client 192.168.1.4] Premature end of script headers: printenv.pl if I place the same script outside of the fcgid folder it works fine. I'm now going to try more complicated examples. If they fail aswel (as I presume they will) Try to get you a debug dump... not sure when though busy weekend and then first week of school. On 9/7/07, Jorge Schrauwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I got it to compile via the included projected manually adding aditional depedancys on libhttp, libapr-1 and libaprutil-1 did the trick. Now I need to find out how it is suposed to work adn see if it works or not On 9/7/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Hmmz still getting link errors :( --- S:\source\x86\modules\mod_fcgid.2.1apxs -llibhttpd -llibapr-1 -llibaprutil-1 -c -i -a mod_fcgid.c cl /nologo /MD /W3 /O2 /D WIN32 /D _WINDOWS /D NDEBUG-IS:\httpd- 2.2\include /c /Fomod_fcgid. lo mod_fcgid.c mod_fcgid.c link kernel32.lib /nologo /subsystem:windows /dll /machine:I386 /libpath:S:\httpd-2.2\lib /out:mod_fcgid.so libhttpd.lib libapr-1.lib libaprutil-1.libmod_fcgid.lo Creating library mod_fcgid.lib and object mod_fcgid.exp mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _merge_fcgid_server_config That's bizare - most any author would set these up as static's within their modules since there is no reason to export them (or attempt to bind to an exported symbol. Either way, I suspect mod_fcgid.c has more source files than the single module source, based on these emits. (Usually it would scream about exported symbol being imported). While on the subject, if this depends on a libfcgid, you probably need to bind to that lib, too. -- ~Jorge -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
I got it to compile via the included projected manually adding aditional depedancys on libhttp, libapr-1 and libaprutil-1 did the trick. Now I need to find out how it is suposed to work adn see if it works or not On 9/7/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Hmmz still getting link errors :( --- S:\source\x86\modules\mod_fcgid.2.1apxs -llibhttpd -llibapr-1 -llibaprutil-1 -c -i -a mod_fcgid.c cl /nologo /MD /W3 /O2 /D WIN32 /D _WINDOWS /D NDEBUG-IS:\httpd- 2.2\include /c /Fomod_fcgid. lo mod_fcgid.c mod_fcgid.c link kernel32.lib /nologo /subsystem:windows /dll /machine:I386 /libpath:S:\httpd-2.2\lib /out:mod_fcgid.so libhttpd.lib libapr-1.lib libaprutil-1.libmod_fcgid.lo Creating library mod_fcgid.lib and object mod_fcgid.exp mod_fcgid.lo : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _merge_fcgid_server_config That's bizare - most any author would set these up as static's within their modules since there is no reason to export them (or attempt to bind to an exported symbol. Either way, I suspect mod_fcgid.c has more source files than the single module source, based on these emits. (Usually it would scream about exported symbol being imported). While on the subject, if this depends on a libfcgid, you probably need to bind to that lib, too. -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Didn't even notice... I usually take the tar.gz source and add in apr-iconv myself then run lineends.pl that is included in srclib/apr/build/, I also run cvtdsp.pl -2005 on there before I start. I didn't even seen a - win32-src.zip at that time. Bingo - that's how I do it. In fact the httpd-* win32-src files start out their existence as unix httpd*.tar.gz unix targets. In this case, I had moved apr-iconv to srclib/ in my builds, but not in the package, and that's what exploded 2.2.6. When I xcopy /s/v *.mak etc, it just added iconv build foo with no source foo. Fortunately, I (and Issac) caught this even before Jim took things live, so no bother. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Didn't even notice... I usually take the tar.gz source and add in apr-iconv myself then run lineends.pl that is included in srclib/apr/build/, I also run cvtdsp.pl -2005 on there before I start. I didn't even seen a -win32-src.zip at that time. On 9/7/07, Issac Goldstand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And Jorge, yeah. I was wondering if I was just getting a really really oddly maimed ZIP :-) William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Issac Goldstand wrote: Uh. Maybe I've lost it, but where's the source for apr-iconv in http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/httpd-2.2.6-win32-src.zip? All I get is an .rc file and a couple of .deps and .maks and /me wonders what Steffan thinks he built ROFL Bill -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
I'll try it as soon as it shows up. William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Issac Goldstand wrote: Uh. Maybe I've lost it, but where's the source for apr-iconv in http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/httpd-2.2.6-win32-src.zip? All I get is an .rc file and a couple of .deps and .maks I just pulled an OH SHIT moment myself building on x86_64 windows... ... there are -r2.zip packages up now, and I just updated the site svn, but I presume Jim hadn't pulled that site update to live so I'm leaving it for him. C.f. http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2.2.6-win32-src-r2.zip ...not quite arrived from our staging to live server yet. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
And Jorge, yeah. I was wondering if I was just getting a really really oddly maimed ZIP :-) William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Issac Goldstand wrote: Uh. Maybe I've lost it, but where's the source for apr-iconv in http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/httpd-2.2.6-win32-src.zip? All I get is an .rc file and a couple of .deps and .maks and /me wonders what Steffan thinks he built ROFL Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Issac Goldstand wrote: Uh. Maybe I've lost it, but where's the source for apr-iconv in http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/httpd-2.2.6-win32-src.zip? All I get is an .rc file and a couple of .deps and .maks I just pulled an OH SHIT moment myself building on x86_64 windows... ... there are -r2.zip packages up now, and I just updated the site svn, but I presume Jim hadn't pulled that site update to live so I'm leaving it for him. C.f. http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2.2.6-win32-src-r2.zip ...not quite arrived from our staging to live server yet. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Uh. Maybe I've lost it, but where's the source for apr-iconv in http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/httpd-2.2.6-win32-src.zip? All I get is an .rc file and a couple of .deps and .maks Issac
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Ok basic example as stated here: http://fastcgi.coremail.cn/configuration.htm#regular%20fastcgi makes the server spit out these again: [Fri Sep 07 17:49:51 2007] [error] [client 192.168.1.4 http://192.168.1.4] Premature end of script headers: printenv.pl Unfortunately the drwatson log didn't tell me a whole lot. If you crank the loglevel to 'debug' can we get any further hints about the failure? Does fcgid do any logging itself?
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On 9/7/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Ok basic example as stated here: http://fastcgi.coremail.cn/configuration.htm#regular%20fastcgi makes the server spit out these again: [Fri Sep 07 17:49:51 2007] [error] [client 192.168.1.4 http://192.168.1.4] Premature end of script headers: printenv.pl Unfortunately the drwatson log didn't tell me a whole lot. If you crank the loglevel to 'debug' can we get any further hints about the failure? Does fcgid do any logging itself? Doesn't seem to do any logging itself but setting LogLevel to debug did turn up this: [Fri Sep 07 21:18:38 2007] [info] mod_fcgid: server S:/perl/bin/perl.exe(2312) started Unrecognized character \x01 at - line 1. [Fri Sep 07 21:18:44 2007] [info] mod_fcgid: process S:/perl/bin/perl.exe(2312) exit(communication error), return code 9 funny thing is it works fine when not using mod_fcgid. I wish I could see what perl is getting from its stdin. -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 [+1]apache_1.3.39 [+1]httpd-2.0.61 [+1]httpd-2.2.6 Thanks!! No, thank YOU :) Small chaos today as some reports contradicted my earlier testing, but I see no regressions, with the exception possibly of mod_fcgid which is playing with some internals of apr. Apparently mod_perl/mod_cgi do work as expected (better, in the case of mod_cgi). Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On 09/05/2007 04:29 PM, Plüm wrote: -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jim Jagielski Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. September 2007 23:29 An: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 [ ]httpd-2.0.61 [ ]httpd-2.2.6 Results for 2.0.61 / 2.2.6: md5 / signature ok for .tar.gz / .tar.bz2. Solaris 9: 5.9 Generic_122300-05 sun4u sparc SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIi-cEngine Solaris gcc (GCC) 3.3.2 No regressions in the perl framework tests that can run on my box compared to 2.2.4 / 2.0.59. 2.0.61: Failed 6/63 test scripts, 90.48% okay. 21/1569 subtests failed, 98.66% okay. 2.2.6 : Failed 6/63 test scripts, 90.48% okay. 2/1579 subtests failed, 99.87% okay. Solaris 8: 5.8 Generic_117350-46 sun4u sparc SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIi-cEngine Solaris gcc (GCC) 3.3.2 Compiles and starts up fine (did not run the perl framework). Linux tests will follow with my votes. No regression on SuSE Linux 10.2 (32 bit). So +1 from me on 2.2.6 and 2.0.61 Regards Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... So far, I see nothing yet preventing us from releasing this tomorrow... assuming that stays the same, I will move the files over to the main dist location to allow mirrors to start snagging and allow us a real release and announcement tomorrow.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
k I the meantime we have to advise the users not to use 2.2.6 because is not compatible with some mods (not just mod_fcgid). We shall advise to stay on 2.2.4 or 2.2.5 RC. Steffen www.apachelounge.com - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 15:48 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... So far, I see nothing yet preventing us from releasing this tomorrow... assuming that stays the same, I will move the files over to the main dist location to allow mirrors to start snagging and allow us a real release and announcement tomorrow.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
An other report: mod_cgi is working OK for me with the Apache 2.2.6 RC, which I built with VC6 - not VC8, on Win2k sp4. I can run the Apache-provided /cgi-bin/printenv.pl test Perl program with no problems. mod_fcgid is not working for me, either with Perl or with my own FCGI test program. Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 15:48 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... So far, I see nothing yet preventing us from releasing this tomorrow... assuming that stays the same, I will move the files over to the main dist location to allow mirrors to start snagging and allow us a real release and announcement tomorrow.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Steffen wrote: k I the meantime we have to advise the users not to use 2.2.6 because is not compatible with some mods (not just mod_fcgid). We shall advise to stay on 2.2.4 or 2.2.5 RC. What other mods is it not compatible with? So far, I haven't heard anyone else confirm your reports. Also, as you know, there was no 2.2.5 released, so make sure that if they do bother to use that, not to post anything on the user or dev lists saying I'm using 2.2.5 and... because it is likely they will be ignored :) I'm assuming the we is you, right?
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Did you rebuild mod_fcgid? On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Steffen wrote: An other report: mod_cgi is working OK for me with the Apache 2.2.6 RC, which I built with VC6 - not VC8, on Win2k sp4. I can run the Apache-provided /cgi-bin/printenv.pl test Perl program with no problems. mod_fcgid is not working for me, either with Perl or with my own FCGI test program. Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 15:48 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... So far, I see nothing yet preventing us from releasing this tomorrow... assuming that stays the same, I will move the files over to the main dist location to allow mirrors to start snagging and allow us a real release and announcement tomorrow.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On Sep 6, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: So far, I see nothing yet preventing us from releasing this tomorrow... assuming that stays the same, I will move the files over to the main dist location to allow mirrors to start snagging and allow us a real release and announcement tomorrow. I'm copying the files to the real dist location as we speak...
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
I'm assuming the we is you, right? It is not just me. We are a team and of course the users. Just as an example the other post from me here which is a report from an other webmaster. I report here test results from the Apache Windows Community from the Apache Lounge, mostly I receive them by mail. To give an idea, there are almost 80.000 thousand downloads 2.2.4 from the two primary sites of the Apache Lounge. I have no figures from the mirrors and others who are making it available, I think an extra few thousand. I respect that you want to release. But it is a pity that we have leave them in the dark with 2.2.6 . But on the other hand, for me, 2.2.6 has minor changes over 2.2.5. Maybe we have to patch 2.2.6 to get it error-free. Yes we all aware that 2.2.5 is not released and when they download they are informed that it is/was a test-release. Don't worry too much, not a lot windows users are posting on the lists. I shall put a an extra note that they cannot expect response on the lists. Btw. The authors of the modules are investigating the issues right now. I do not expect that they are coming soon with solutions. Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 17:52 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Steffen wrote: k I the meantime we have to advise the users not to use 2.2.6 because is not compatible with some mods (not just mod_fcgid). We shall advise to stay on 2.2.4 or 2.2.5 RC. What other mods is it not compatible with? So far, I haven't heard anyone else confirm your reports. Also, as you know, there was no 2.2.5 released, so make sure that if they do bother to use that, not to post anything on the user or dev lists saying I'm using 2.2.5 and... because it is likely they will be ignored :) I'm assuming the we is you, right?
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
I did, not sure the guy from the report below did. The author(s) of mod_fcgid looking at the issue right now. Do not expect that there is a solution from them soon. I do not now how many users are affected by the bug(s) in 2.2.6 . I guess there are thousands users running mod-fcgid , special heavy loaded sites. The guess is based on the ~80.000 downloads of 2.2.4 from the www.apachelounge.com . And also now a days quite some users Win 32 building Apache. Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 17:53 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Did you rebuild mod_fcgid? On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Steffen wrote: An other report: mod_cgi is working OK for me with the Apache 2.2.6 RC, which I built with VC6 - not VC8, on Win2k sp4. I can run the Apache-provided /cgi-bin/printenv.pl test Perl program with no problems. mod_fcgid is not working for me, either with Perl or with my own FCGI test program. Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 15:48 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... So far, I see nothing yet preventing us from releasing this tomorrow... assuming that stays the same, I will move the files over to the main dist location to allow mirrors to start snagging and allow us a real release and announcement tomorrow.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Better we stop this thread. See the post at: http://www.apachelounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8691 , please do not reply to that post. Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 21:47 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review On Sep 6, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Steffen wrote: I'm assuming the we is you, right? It is not just me. We are a team and of course the users. Just as an example the other post from me here which is a report from an other webmaster. I report here test results from the Apache Windows Community from the Apache Lounge, mostly I receive them by mail. You said that we need to: advise the users not to use 2.2.6 because is not compatible with some mods which, afaik, is not the case. You reported issues with mod_fcgid, which may be true, but that hasn't been confirmed by anyone else, nor do I see reports to support the some mods statement as well. Unless, of course, the cryptic phrase An other report actually means The below is a report from someone else who is also seeing an issue instead of Oh, by the way, I also tried this personally and I see that mod_cgi is working OK for me.. With all this being the case, I can't see holding up a release nor can I see us (us being the ASF) making some blanket statement that Win32 users should not use 2.2.6 because it is not compatible with some mods... If we had some more supporting data for that, then maybe... Maybe we have to patch 2.2.6 to get it error-free. Well, there is the patches directory that, if we discover a bug, allows people to download the patch and rebuild. Of course, this all means tracking down and discovering the bug with some detailed debugging info rather than a it doesn't work :)
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Ummm hrmm: A hurry backport is causing this and there is hardly tested in real live. Hopefully ASF comes with a patch soon. So you know what's causing this? Please point out the exact hurry backport so we can look there. And again, WHAT OTHER 3rd party modules are having problems?? Can you provide ANY FURTHER information other than cryptic its not working messages followed by ASF hates Windows users comments?? If we *knew* what the problems were, we'd try like heck to fix 'em. I know Bill looked hard and long, but had no luck, mostly because the amount of real concrete data was woefully lacking. On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Steffen wrote: Better we stop this thread. See the post at: http://www.apachelounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php? p=8691 , please do not reply to that post. Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 21:47 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review On Sep 6, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Steffen wrote: I'm assuming the we is you, right? It is not just me. We are a team and of course the users. Just as an example the other post from me here which is a report from an other webmaster. I report here test results from the Apache Windows Community from the Apache Lounge, mostly I receive them by mail. You said that we need to: advise the users not to use 2.2.6 because is not compatible with some mods which, afaik, is not the case. You reported issues with mod_fcgid, which may be true, but that hasn't been confirmed by anyone else, nor do I see reports to support the some mods statement as well. Unless, of course, the cryptic phrase An other report actually means The below is a report from someone else who is also seeing an issue instead of Oh, by the way, I also tried this personally and I see that mod_cgi is working OK for me.. With all this being the case, I can't see holding up a release nor can I see us (us being the ASF) making some blanket statement that Win32 users should not use 2.2.6 because it is not compatible with some mods... If we had some more supporting data for that, then maybe... Maybe we have to patch 2.2.6 to get it error-free. Well, there is the patches directory that, if we discover a bug, allows people to download the patch and rebuild. Of course, this all means tracking down and discovering the bug with some detailed debugging info rather than a it doesn't work :)
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 09:48:28AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... So far, I see nothing yet preventing us from releasing this tomorrow... assuming that stays the same, I will move the files over to the main dist location to allow mirrors to start snagging and allow us a real release and announcement tomorrow. Any chance I can test for bugs on BSD/OS ? The last time it was major. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- Member - Liberal International This is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ici [EMAIL PROTECTED] God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! PAtriots! MAke your declaration of loyalty! -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:33 PM, The Doctor wrote: Any chance I can test for bugs on BSD/OS ? The last time it was major. Well, we are pushing out to mirrors, but that shouldn't stop people from testing... If something shows up we have options, the best option being determined by the kind of bug, the severity, etc...
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
I am a typical Windows user and not a developer. Yes I can build with VC and can do little adjustments in C++ Sorry I cannot give more info, it is just not working with no signs in the Apache logs. As I told, the authors are looking at it, had to wait when they have more info. Maybe I am thinking to simple, 2.2.6 contains some backports over 2.2.5 so a big change that one of lines in the change log must cause this. Oh btw, we/I do not hate ASF at all, we Windows users sometimes crying for a little more attention. This is the main reason that the Apache Lounge is started. Can we stop now this discussion ? Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 22:20 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Ummm hrmm: A hurry backport is causing this and there is hardly tested in real live. Hopefully ASF comes with a patch soon. So you know what's causing this? Please point out the exact hurry backport so we can look there. And again, WHAT OTHER 3rd party modules are having problems?? Can you provide ANY FURTHER information other than cryptic its not working messages followed by ASF hates Windows users comments?? If we *knew* what the problems were, we'd try like heck to fix 'em. I know Bill looked hard and long, but had no luck, mostly because the amount of real concrete data was woefully lacking. On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Steffen wrote: Better we stop this thread. See the post at: http://www.apachelounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php? p=8691 , please do not reply to that post. Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 21:47 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review On Sep 6, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Steffen wrote: I'm assuming the we is you, right? It is not just me. We are a team and of course the users. Just as an example the other post from me here which is a report from an other webmaster. I report here test results from the Apache Windows Community from the Apache Lounge, mostly I receive them by mail. You said that we need to: advise the users not to use 2.2.6 because is not compatible with some mods which, afaik, is not the case. You reported issues with mod_fcgid, which may be true, but that hasn't been confirmed by anyone else, nor do I see reports to support the some mods statement as well. Unless, of course, the cryptic phrase An other report actually means The below is a report from someone else who is also seeing an issue instead of Oh, by the way, I also tried this personally and I see that mod_cgi is working OK for me.. With all this being the case, I can't see holding up a release nor can I see us (us being the ASF) making some blanket statement that Win32 users should not use 2.2.6 because it is not compatible with some mods... If we had some more supporting data for that, then maybe... Maybe we have to patch 2.2.6 to get it error-free. Well, there is the patches directory that, if we discover a bug, allows people to download the patch and rebuild. Of course, this all means tracking down and discovering the bug with some detailed debugging info rather than a it doesn't work :)
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On 9/6/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ASF hates Windows users comments?? I usually prefure not to poke my nose into other peoples discussions but... my experience with the ASF is that they threat windows users equally than linux/unix/whatever users. The problem is windows users generally don't compile things them selfs and let others do it. So they don't know the code as wel or at all compared to other users who report bugs on linux. Windows users (my self included) usually go like: Dudez XYZ is broken, Fix it, Fix it, Fix it. When the dev's look at it and ask for more information they usually don't get it. So it isn't fixed at all or as fast as a linux bug would be. While people having bugs or minor problems on unix/linux/bsd/... sometimes provide a ready cooked patch that with a few tweaks can be imported into the source tree and the problem is gone. Note: I'm in no way accusing steffen of not providing or trying to provide more information. I myself can't usually can't. I remember me spamming wrowe's inbox for x64 fixed. After lots of attempts I did manged to get it working. I'll try to see if I can find out why mod_fcgid isn't working but like so many windows users I don't the programing language used. I can read tiny bits of it with my experience in other language but thats about it. -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
I tried to compiled mod_fcgid myself to see if I can replicate the problem. I can't even compiled it against 2.2.6. I get a lot of link errors agains APR. --- complete buildlog availble on request but nothing odd until this --- 1fcgid_spawn_ctl.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__ap_log_error referenced in function _spawn_control_init 1mod_fcgid.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__ap_log_error 1fcgid_pm_win.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__ap_log_error 1fcgid_proc_win.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__ap_log_error 1fcgid_proctbl_win.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__ap_log_error 1fcgid_protocol.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__ap_log_error 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__ap_log_error 1fcgid_bucket.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__ap_log_error 1fcgid_filter.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__ap_log_error 1fcgid_pm_main.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__ap_log_error 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _bucket_ctx_cleanup 1fcgid_pm_main.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1fcgid_spawn_ctl.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__apr_bucket_type_immortal 1fcgid_filter.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__apr_bucket_type_immortal 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__apr_bucket_type_eos 1fcgid_filter.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__apr_bucket_type_eos 1fcgid_proc_win.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__apr_bucket_type_eos referenced in function _proc_spawn_process 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _handle_request 1fcgid_filter.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _handle_request 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _handle_request 1mod_fcgid.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _handle_request 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _handle_request 1fcgid_conf.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1mod_fcgid.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _handle_request 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _handle_request 1fcgid_filter.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _handle_request 1fcgid_pm_main.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1fcgid_pm_win.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _handle_request 1fcgid_pm_win.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1fcgid_proc_win.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1fcgid_proc_win.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__apr_pool_cleanup_null 1mod_fcgid.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__apr_pool_cleanup_null 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__apr_pool_cleanup_null referenced in function _handle_request 1fcgid_conf.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__apr_pool_cleanup_null 1fcgid_pm_main.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__apr_pool_cleanup_null 1fcgid_pm_win.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__apr_pool_cleanup_null 1fcgid_spawn_ctl.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1mod_fcgid.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _handle_request 1fcgid_conf.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1fcgid_proc_win.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1fcgid_proctbl_win.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in function _bridge_request 1fcgid_bridge.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol [EMAIL PROTECTED] referenced in
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Steffen wrote: I the meantime we have to advise the users not to use 2.2.6 because is not compatible with some mods (not just mod_fcgid). We shall advise to stay on 2.2.4 or 2.2.5 RC. If you would like to clear up FUD (some mods) with explicit mods that would be productive. It would also be productive to discuss your concern with the mod_fcgid maintainers, as the apr behavior is not likely to be regressed to the previous behavior of leaking file handles (which I suspect mod_fcgid had leveraged). If I understand your later post; mod_fcgid is not working for me, either with Perl or with my own FCGI test program. your issues with mod_perl were in conjunction -with- mod_fcgid? Just trying to narrow down the focus. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Jorge Schrauwen wrote: Windows users (my self included) usually go like: Dudez XYZ is broken, Fix it, Fix it, Fix it. When the dev's look at it and ask for more information they usually don't get it. So it isn't fixed at all or as fast as a linux bug would be. You know, you hit the nail on the head. http://httpd.apache.org/dev/debugging.html has some great information, presuming the distributor of your win32 binaries actually provides the .pdb debugging context files that are required to emit a legible backtrace. (Ok, not strictly required, a significantly less helpful backtrace is emitted without .pdb's, no arguments from the call stack for example, but only if the recommended /Oy- flag is passed to the compiler. OpenSSL doesn't enable this flag by default, so a crash behind an openssl callback from a stock build of openssl will produce an entirely illegible backtrace.) I'm going to rip section 2 of that document in two, one for live backtraces, and a second for JIT/postmortem backtraces, since these seem shrouded in mystery from many users/developers (and they shouldn't be). Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Jorge Schrauwen wrote: I tried to compiled mod_fcgid myself to see if I can replicate the problem. I can't even compiled it against 2.2.6. I get a lot of link errors agains APR. Silly question, did you add libapr-1.lib, libaprutil-1.lib libhttpd.lib to the link command? (Worse, if you did add apr-1.lib aprutil-1.lib, those are static libraries and wouldn't even interface into the running instance of the libraries in a running httpd process). Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
The later post was a report of an other tester, sorry no answer I have. Yes, I dicusssed it with the maintainer of mod_fcgid today. He is puzzling now an as I told before, we have to wait. Oh, btw: mod_perl (also build with VC8) is not working with 2.2.6, with 2.2.5 RC no single issue. Steffen - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 23:22 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Steffen wrote: I the meantime we have to advise the users not to use 2.2.6 because is not compatible with some mods (not just mod_fcgid). We shall advise to stay on 2.2.4 or 2.2.5 RC. If you would like to clear up FUD (some mods) with explicit mods that would be productive. It would also be productive to discuss your concern with the mod_fcgid maintainers, as the apr behavior is not likely to be regressed to the previous behavior of leaking file handles (which I suspect mod_fcgid had leveraged). If I understand your later post; mod_fcgid is not working for me, either with Perl or with my own FCGI test program. your issues with mod_perl were in conjunction -with- mod_fcgid? Just trying to narrow down the focus. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On 9/6/07, Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The later post was a report of an other tester, sorry no answer I have. Yes, I dicusssed it with the maintainer of mod_fcgid today. He is puzzling now an as I told before, we have to wait. Oh, btw: mod_perl (also build with VC8) is not working with 2.2.6, with 2.2.5 RC no single issue. Odd works fine with my limited setup over here. I you want to try my binary? Steffen - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 23:22 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Steffen wrote: I the meantime we have to advise the users not to use 2.2.6 because is not compatible with some mods (not just mod_fcgid). We shall advise to stay on 2.2.4 or 2.2.5 RC. If you would like to clear up FUD (some mods) with explicit mods that would be productive. It would also be productive to discuss your concern with the mod_fcgid maintainers, as the apr behavior is not likely to be regressed to the previous behavior of leaking file handles (which I suspect mod_fcgid had leveraged). If I understand your later post; mod_fcgid is not working for me, either with Perl or with my own FCGI test program. your issues with mod_perl were in conjunction -with- mod_fcgid? Just trying to narrow down the focus. Bill -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On 9/6/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jorge Schrauwen wrote: I tried to compiled mod_fcgid myself to see if I can replicate the problem. I can't even compiled it against 2.2.6. I get a lot of link errors agains APR. Silly question, did you add libapr-1.lib, libaprutil-1.lib libhttpd.lib to the link command? I have no idea... I update all the paths for via the project properties so the pointed to my httpd-2.2.6 source dir since that what it seems to want. Usually thats enough to get it to compile and run fine. Any ideas to where to look? (providing the sln, vcproj etc help?) http://dev.blackdot.be/mod_fcgid.2.1.zip This should be online untill I head of to bed in 2h if you want to have a look. note: I have my httpd-2.2(.6) folder located 2 directories above the current one. httpd-2.2 modules/mod_fcgid modules/mod_perl modules/blabla Once/if I get it to compile and it doesn't work I'll try to provide you with a back trace... all I need to do is rebuild my httpd and not delete the *.pdb's this time round. So I definitely have them available (Worse, if you did add apr-1.lib aprutil-1.lib, those are static libraries and wouldn't even interface into the running instance of the libraries in a running httpd process). Bill -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Steffen wrote: Oh, btw: mod_perl (also build with VC8) is not working with 2.2.6, with 2.2.5 RC no single issue. Perl, mod_perl, httpd and apr all built with VC8? Or is this AS perl or some other? Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Steffen wrote: The later post was a report of an other tester, sorry no answer I have. Yes, I dicusssed it with the maintainer of mod_fcgid today. He is puzzling now an as I told before, we have to wait. Before he puzzles too long, you might want to ensure you have a full rebuild of mod_fcgid against apr-1.2.11, that is the one bundled in the new httpd-2.2.6. If it *did* use include/arch/win32/*.h files (which does *not* following the versioning rules, because those entries are strictly private to the library) --- there's a good chance that a new module build is required. It occurred to me that since the authors do probably delve into the win32 internals, you might want to check this out.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
+1 httpd-2.2.6, OS X 10.4.10, gcc 4.0.1 Roy
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
tisdagen den 4 september 2007 skrev Jim Jagielski: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 [ ]httpd-2.0.61 [ ]httpd-2.2.6 Thanks!! 2.2.6 works for me on Mandriva Linux Cooker, Mandriva Linux Corporate Server 4, Mandriva Linux 2007.1 (x86_32 and x86_64), all tests passed with perl-framework. Good job guys! -- Regards // Oden Eriksson
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
+1:1.3.39 Builds with nothing except for signedness warnings on Win32 (mostly related to goofy FD_SET declarations by MS). So no adverse symptoms. Jim Jagielski wrote: On Sep 4, 2007, at 8:15 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: Hmmm... yeah, bummer. If that's it though, I'm +1 on keeping as is... we can document this. Or, we could *gasp* just reroll :/ Or we can repack the same files. This is a packaging artifact, not an artifact of source control. repackaged and uploaded. Should sync in a coupla hours. Sigs look great, package contents (adjusted to new path) check out. I should really spend some cycles and update release.sh for 1.3 :) Considering how often that might be used again (perhaps never?) - knock yourself out. That's the real spirit of scratching our own itches :) Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On 9/5/07, Jorge Schrauwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/4/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 [ ]httpd-2.0.61 [X]httpd-2.2.6 Thanks!! I know I'm not allowed to vote but I'll do it anyway. It compiles and run fine on my server (gentoo linux). Been stable for about 30min now and all seems to work. Also recompiled mod_macro mod_perl against it. Fine too. I'll give it a shot under windows tomorrow (32-bit and 64-bit) so expect to hear from me again soon. At that time I'll also give an update on how it is doing on my live server. -- ~Jorge I didn't have time to do a 64-bit build. But the normal 32-bit build went fine. Live server still doing great. -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On 9/4/2007 at 3:29 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 [ ]httpd-2.0.61 [ ]httpd-2.2.6 Thanks!! +1 all Netware Brad
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Jim Jagielski wrote on Tuesday, September 04, 2007: This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 [ ]httpd-2.0.61 [ ]httpd-2.2.6 +1 for Apache_1.3.39 on TPF (TPF doesn't support Apache 2 yet so no vote on those.) -David
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Any indication on *how* it is broken? On Sep 5, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Steffen wrote: Sorry, it is on Win32 With 2.2.6 third party mod mod_fcgid (Fast cgi) is broken. With 2.2.5 RC it was all fine. mod_fcgid is widely used in the community with php. For me a big -1 Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 04 September, 2007 23:29 Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 [ ]httpd-2.0.61 [ ]httpd-2.2.6 Thanks!!
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
As a rough guess, I'm assuming it may have something to do with the stderr/stdout stuff... Anyone testing with mod_cgid? On Sep 5, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Any indication on *how* it is broken? On Sep 5, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Steffen wrote: Sorry, it is on Win32 With 2.2.6 third party mod mod_fcgid (Fast cgi) is broken. With 2.2.5 RC it was all fine. mod_fcgid is widely used in the community with php. For me a big -1 Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 04 September, 2007 23:29 Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 [ ]httpd-2.0.61 [ ]httpd-2.2.6 Thanks!!
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
I don't have any cgi scripts so I tried to get the printenv test-cgi file to work. I get 500 and error_log has this. [Wed Sep 05 20:44:36 2007] [error] [client 87.66.74.14] Premature end of script headers: printenv.pl [Wed Sep 05 20:50:24 2007] [error] [client 87.66.74.14] Premature end of script headers: test.cgi scripts works fine when ran from console. I know its not a config error because I know they used to work fine. On 9/5/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a rough guess, I'm assuming it may have something to do with the stderr/stdout stuff... Anyone testing with mod_cgid? On Sep 5, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Any indication on *how* it is broken? On Sep 5, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Steffen wrote: Sorry, it is on Win32 With 2.2.6 third party mod mod_fcgid (Fast cgi) is broken. With 2.2.5 RC it was all fine. mod_fcgid is widely used in the community with php. For me a big -1 Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 04 September, 2007 23:29 Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 [ ]httpd-2.0.61 [ ]httpd-2.2.6 Thanks!! -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
little things: mod_bucketeer.so is not build out of the box with Win32 gui-build. zlib1.dll is now copied to /bin , seems to me not necessary. Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 04 September, 2007 23:29 Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 [ ]httpd-2.0.61 [ ]httpd-2.2.6 Thanks!!
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Is this Win32? On Sep 5, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: I don't have any cgi scripts so I tried to get the printenv test- cgi file to work. I get 500 and error_log has this. [Wed Sep 05 20:44:36 2007] [error] [client 87.66.74.14] Premature end of script headers: printenv.pl [Wed Sep 05 20:50:24 2007] [error] [client 87.66.74.14] Premature end of script headers: test.cgi scripts works fine when ran from console. I know its not a config error because I know they used to work fine. On 9/5/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a rough guess, I'm assuming it may have something to do with the stderr/stdout stuff... Anyone testing with mod_cgid? On Sep 5, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Any indication on *how* it is broken? On Sep 5, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Steffen wrote: Sorry, it is on Win32 With 2.2.6 third party mod mod_fcgid (Fast cgi) is broken. With 2.2.5 RC it was all fine. mod_fcgid is widely used in the community with php. For me a big -1 Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 04 September, 2007 23:29 Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 [ ]httpd-2.0.61 [ ]httpd-2.2.6 Thanks!! -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
I get this kind off error too when stopping. Never seen before: Failed to dup STDIN: Bad file descriptor. Error in my_thread_global_end(): 251 threads didn't exit - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 04 September, 2007 23:29 Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 [ ]httpd-2.0.61 [ ]httpd-2.2.6 Thanks!!
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Also mod_perl is not working here with Win32. No indication in the logs. Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 04 September, 2007 23:29 Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 [ ]httpd-2.0.61 [ ]httpd-2.2.6 Thanks!!
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Steffen wrote: little things: mod_bucketeer.so is not build out of the box with Win32 gui-build. Not necessary (except for testers). Trivial for the developer to create (along with many similar testing modules - instead of building the BuildBin target, use BuildAll target. zlib1.dll is now copied to /bin , seems to me not necessary. zlib1.dll doesn't come from Microsoft, it's quite necessary. (I can't imagine you don't ship it?!?) It's used by mod_deflate, and also by openssl 0.9.8 - we anticipate most 2.2 users to use that version as it was current when Apache 2.2.0 was first released. In 2.0 we anticipated 0.9.7 which doesn't enable zlib by default, and we had compiled the required zlib 1.1.x sources into mod_deflate.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Steffen wrote: I get this kind off error too when stopping. Never seen before: Failed to dup STDIN: Bad file descriptor. Error in my_thread_global_end(): 251 threads didn't exit I expect you are talking about mod_fcgid again?
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Jorge Schrauwen wrote: I don't have any cgi scripts so I tried to get the printenv test-cgi file to work. I get 500 and error_log has this. [Wed Sep 05 20:44:36 2007] [error] [client 87.66.74.14 http://87.66.74.14] Premature end of script headers: printenv.pl [Wed Sep 05 20:50:24 2007] [error] [client 87.66.74.14 http://87.66.74.14] Premature end of script headers: test.cgi Researching! Would you share which version of Windows?
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
I have no zlib1.dll on my box and mod_deflate works fine. It's included/static in mod-deflate.so. Next time I shall ship it too, does not harm. Steffen - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, 05 September, 2007 21:40 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Steffen wrote: little things: mod_bucketeer.so is not build out of the box with Win32 gui-build. Not necessary (except for testers). Trivial for the developer to create (along with many similar testing modules - instead of building the BuildBin target, use BuildAll target. zlib1.dll is now copied to /bin , seems to me not necessary. zlib1.dll doesn't come from Microsoft, it's quite necessary. (I can't imagine you don't ship it?!?) It's used by mod_deflate, and also by openssl 0.9.8 - we anticipate most 2.2 users to use that version as it was current when Apache 2.2.0 was first released. In 2.0 we anticipated 0.9.7 which doesn't enable zlib by default, and we had compiled the required zlib 1.1.x sources into mod_deflate.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Nope, was not running mod_fcgid. Steffen - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, 05 September, 2007 21:44 Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Steffen wrote: I get this kind off error too when stopping. Never seen before: Failed to dup STDIN: Bad file descriptor. Error in my_thread_global_end(): 251 threads didn't exit I expect you are talking about mod_fcgid again?
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Steffen wrote: I have no zlib1.dll on my box and mod_deflate works fine. It's included/static in mod-deflate.so. Next time I shall ship it too, does not harm. FYI - I haven't dug into the theory, but I'd presumed a possible race and certainly suboptimal behavior if you go with OpenSSL's 'zlib-dynamic' win32 implementation (actually any zlib-dynamic for a server application, no matter which platform). The optimal behavior is to enable-zlib to openssl so it's simply present upon first-use of compressed TLS streams. This is how I've configured openssl-0.9.8. If you were to link static to both openssl and mod_deflate on win32, of course that also works (and is also a redundancy ;-) Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Jorge Schrauwen wrote: I don't have any cgi scripts so I tried to get the printenv test-cgi file to work. I get 500 and error_log has this. [Wed Sep 05 20:44:36 2007] [error] [client 87.66.74.14 http://87.66.74.14] Premature end of script headers: printenv.pl [Wed Sep 05 20:50:24 2007] [error] [client 87.66.74.14 http://87.66.74.14] Premature end of script headers: test.cgi Researching! Would you share which version of Windows? Well, not windows apparently, on win32 we only install printenv.pl (presuming no /bin/sh on that platform to 'test.cgi'). Without perl, of course printenv.pl won't run either (and you may need to tweak the shebang line appropriately after install). If you have a faux-unix shell, you can try out test.cgi after you tweak its shebang line. AND /cgi-bin/printenv.pl is working, no hassle for me, here with 2.2.6. (Were you testing that, or 2.0.61, or 1.3.39?) On unix, we don't set these as executable out of the box. Toggle the perms to 755 and tell us what happens. All such scripts are inherently xss-able with bullshit utf-7 auto-detection by our least favorite, most anamorphic user agent, so it actually isn't a good idea to enable them by default for a production server. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On 9/5/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Jorge Schrauwen wrote: I don't have any cgi scripts so I tried to get the printenv test-cgi file to work. I get 500 and error_log has this. [Wed Sep 05 20:44:36 2007] [error] [client 87.66.74.14 http://87.66.74.14] Premature end of script headers: printenv.pl [Wed Sep 05 20:50:24 2007] [error] [client 87.66.74.14 http://87.66.74.14] Premature end of script headers: test.cgi Researching! Would you share which version of Windows? Well, not windows apparently, on win32 we only install printenv.pl (presuming no /bin/sh on that platform to 'test.cgi'). Without perl, of course printenv.pl won't run either (and you may need to tweak the shebang line appropriately after install). If you have a faux-unix shell, you can try out test.cgi after you tweak its shebang line. AND /cgi-bin/printenv.pl is working, no hassle for me, here with 2.2.6. (Were you testing that, or 2.0.61, or 1.3.39?) Yes printenv.pl is working on windows... I was testing it on mod_cgid on my gentoo box though. On unix, we don't set these as executable out of the box. Toggle the perms to 755 and tell us what happens. I'll give it a try Yep that did the trick. So mod_cgid seems to be working fine. Sry for the false alarm... I don't usage much cgi so I have rather limited experience with them. All such scripts are inherently xss-able with bullshit utf-7 auto-detection by our least favorite, most anamorphic user agent, so it actually isn't a good idea to enable them by default for a production server. Bill -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
What exectly is not working in mod_perl? my limited mod_perl config is working fine. On 9/5/07, Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also mod_perl is not working here with Win32. No indication in the logs. Steffen - Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 04 September, 2007 23:29 Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 [ ]httpd-2.0.61 [ ]httpd-2.2.6 Thanks!! -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Steffen wrote: With 2.2.6 third party mod mod_fcgid (Fast cgi) is broken. With 2.2.5 RC it was all fine. mod_fcgid is widely used in the community with php. I guess my puzzlement is that the fastcgi model I understand; fork... instantiate child spining cgid listener - on accept... fork run with only a single instantiated child ready to be forked off in multiple copies simply doesn't work on win32. You can emulate the behavior, but you either end up exec'ing each time, or you end up recycling the same process leading to a less secure process separation model. In any case, the changes to Win32 now mirror the OS2 model, so one expects if mod_fcgid is broken on Win32, its been broken on OS2. So it's likely you'll need to ask the maintainers of the win32 port of mod_fcgid what is going on, and advise them that process inheritance has been changed to inhibit the leaking of pipes on the win32 platform, a problem that the PHP community brought to us long ago with respect to the unix platform (and was resolved with close_for_exec logic in the httpd pool model, a concept that doesn't translate to win32.) Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Jorge Schrauwen wrote: What exectly is not working in mod_perl? my limited mod_perl config is working fine. On 9/5/07, *Steffen* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also mod_perl is not working here with Win32. No indication in the logs. FWIW; I believe I know why mod_perl is not as verbose on Win32 (oh DUH moment)... this is not a regression, but when we clip in the Event logger pipe we actually plug the FD into the faux-posix/stdio FILE emulation API for Win32. With the error log, we never have (in the past). I can certainly work up a fix so that stdin/out/err and faux-fd 0, 1, 2 behave as expected from APR when not using apr file io. But this will also more tightly bind to a specific MSVC version, and those binaries built across multiple MSVC versions (e.g. AS perl built on VC 6, AS python built on VC 7.1, Apache+mods built with VS8) will be even more likely to implode :) Bill
[VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 [ ]httpd-2.0.61 [ ]httpd-2.2.6 Thanks!!
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On 9/4/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 [ ]httpd-2.0.61 [X]httpd-2.2.6 Thanks!! I know I'm not allowed to vote but I'll do it anyway. It compiles and run fine on my server (gentoo linux). Been stable for about 30min now and all seems to work. Also recompiled mod_macro mod_perl against it. Fine too. I'll give it a shot under windows tomorrow (32-bit and 64-bit) so expect to hear from me again soon. At that time I'll also give an update on how it is doing on my live server. -- ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On 04.09.2007, at 23:29, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 Well, probably not a real blocker but the tarball (and therefore all compressed archives: Z, bz2, gz) for 1.3.39 expands to apache-1.3 instead of apache_1.3.39 as the name might suggest - this didn't happen for any other release yet and might overwrite something else (which just happened for me). Also the NOTICE file in there still says 2006 :( Cheers, Erik
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Erik Abele wrote: On 04.09.2007, at 23:29, Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close Sept 7, unless otherwise noted... +/-1 (x == +1) [ ]apache_1.3.39 Well, probably not a real blocker but the tarball (and therefore all compressed archives: Z, bz2, gz) for 1.3.39 expands to apache-1.3 instead of apache_1.3.39 as the name might suggest - this didn't happen for any other release yet and might overwrite something else (which just happened for me). Hmmm... yeah, bummer. If that's it though, I'm +1 on keeping as is... we can document this. Or, we could *gasp* just reroll :/ -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Jim Jagielski wrote: Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3 Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located, as expected at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ [ ]apache_1.3.39 -0.1 The tarball apache_1.3.39.tar.gz explodes into apache-1.3/, which isn't exactly conventional. I'll be happy to continue and check this functionally on win32, but would be much more enthusiastic if it unpacked to apache_1.3.39/. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
Jim Jagielski wrote: Hmmm... yeah, bummer. If that's it though, I'm +1 on keeping as is... we can document this. Or, we could *gasp* just reroll :/ Or we can repack the same files. This is a packaging artifact, not an artifact of source control. Bill
Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate tarballs for review
On Sep 4, 2007, at 8:15 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: Hmmm... yeah, bummer. If that's it though, I'm +1 on keeping as is... we can document this. Or, we could *gasp* just reroll :/ Or we can repack the same files. This is a packaging artifact, not an artifact of source control. repackaged and uploaded. Should sync in a coupla hours. I should really spend some cycles and update release.sh for 1.3 :)
