On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 12:10 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. said:
So... is it unreasonable in README.RPM to point the user to obtain the
current httpd.spec/httpd.in from /dist/httpd/httpd-2.0.55-rpm-src.tar.gz
which would be grabbed from svn httpd/package/rpm/, and drop
Ondrej Sury wrote:
Sorry, but in DEB world, this is pretty normal to have separate upstream
source and debian/ subdirectory and it's not serious pain at all.
Exactly, it's normal in the debian world, but it's not normal in the rpm
world.
Each packaging system has it's own default way of
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 14:44 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
[...]
Sounds reasonable...
Sometimes however, someone might need a bleeding edge feature not
offered by a distro, but they might not want to clutter up their
system
with custom install trees. The ASF packages serve the needs of this
Ondrej Sury said:
Then I would suggest to provide _clean_ .tar.gz not including any .spec
or whatever and *also* provide .src.rpm package for bleeding edge
testers. How does it sound to you?
In other words a return to where we started way back when, ie no spec file
at all, and various
Thank you everyone for testing, especially the infrateam for picking
this up on Ajax and really stressing it under mod_mbox (in spite of
a few more fixes required to mbox's mime processing :)
Although the site is updated, starting the clock on the announce till
early tomorrow aftn (america time)
William A. Rowe, Jr. said:
So... is it unreasonable in README.RPM to point the user to obtain the
current httpd.spec/httpd.in from /dist/httpd/httpd-2.0.55-rpm-src.tar.gz
which would be grabbed from svn httpd/package/rpm/, and drop it into the
unpacked httpd-2.0.55 source tarball, in order to
Luc Pardon said:
In that case the 2.0 httpd.spec files should either a) not require
pre-installed apr packages and build apr as part of the httpd rpm,
A definite -1 on this. If this were so, httpd could not coexist cleanly
with other packages that depended on APR.
or b)
build the
Graham Leggett wrote:
Luc Pardon said:
In that case the 2.0 httpd.spec files should either a) not require
pre-installed apr packages and build apr as part of the httpd rpm,
A definite -1 on this. If this were so, httpd could not coexist cleanly
with other packages that depended
Colm MacCarthaigh said:
How many people actually build RPM's is what I'm wondering, given the
errors that creep in in the releases, and we don't see that many
complaints, it can't be a very high number. I see a fair amount of
downloads for the RPM's files themselves, which is what makes me
Luc Pardon said:
Yes, but what got me confused is that the httpd tarball comes with
the APR source (hence the docs don't talk about it as being a
prerequisite) whereas the current spec file requires you to go elsewhere
and get something that is already there. It seem to me that this kind
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 01:34:16PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
We provide SRPMs for building, which contain fixed httpd.spec files.
I see people downloading them a fair ammount ( 400 per day, which is
actually quite a lot for the binaries section), and I don't see why
these would discontinue.
Colm MacCarthaigh said:
I see people downloading them a fair ammount ( 400 per day, which is
actually quite a lot for the binaries section), and I don't see why
these would discontinue. So, would it be so bad a thing if the release
tarball wasn't itself buildable?
The release tarball should
Graham Leggett wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. said:
The problem is that packaging is almost a 20/20 hindsite game. There's
no way we should expect that all of these many platform specifics can
all be maintained pre-release. That's why, in the Win32 .msi case,
there is a seperate
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
snip
This was a snafu in the way the rpm change was presented, not in the
tarballs. httpd-2.0's distribution tarball will always contain apr 0.9.
That doesn't mean httpd-2.2 (with apr 1.x) will do the same; that's yet
to be determined.
In that case the
Tested successfully on Linux 2.6.13/x86_64 (Fedora Core 4) with
both worker and prefork MPMs.
I encountered lots of errors in perl-framework's t/TEST with prefork
on Darwin 8.2.0/PPC (OS X 10.4.2). I don't yet know whether these
are due to httpd-2.0.55 problems or just problems with my Perl
måndag 10 oktober 2005 06.42 skrev William A. Rowe, Jr.:
The httpd-2.0.55 candidate, including win32 source .zip and installers*,
is now available for testing at
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please review this candidate, and when responding, indicate the precise
operating system
måndag 10 oktober 2005 09.54 skrev Oden Eriksson:
måndag 10 oktober 2005 06.42 skrev William A. Rowe, Jr.:
The httpd-2.0.55 candidate, including win32 source .zip and installers*,
is now available for testing at
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please review this candidate, and
Brian Pane said:
I encountered lots of errors in perl-framework's t/TEST with prefork
on Darwin 8.2.0/PPC (OS X 10.4.2). I don't yet know whether these
are due to httpd-2.0.55 problems or just problems with my Perl
installation.
I ran the build/binbuild.sh script, and httpd built clean on
måndag 10 oktober 2005 06.42 skrev William A. Rowe, Jr.:
The httpd-2.0.55 candidate, including win32 source .zip and installers*,
is now available for testing at
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please review this candidate, and when responding, indicate the precise
operating system
On Oct 10, 2005, at 2:22 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Brian Pane said:
I encountered lots of errors in perl-framework's t/TEST with prefork
on Darwin 8.2.0/PPC (OS X 10.4.2). I don't yet know whether these
are due to httpd-2.0.55 problems or just problems with my Perl
installation.
I ran
Oden Eriksson wrote:
And some investigations told me it requires apr 0.9.7, maybe the autotools
stuff should check for this or be documented?
Yup - apr 0.9.7 is part of the bundle. We can spell this out in the
announce, certainly, and on the downloads page README - would that
suffice?
Brian Pane wrote:
I encountered lots of errors in perl-framework's t/TEST with prefork
on Darwin 8.2.0/PPC (OS X 10.4.2). I don't yet know whether these
are due to httpd-2.0.55 problems or just problems with my Perl
installation.
Hmmm... review this bug (not fixed in 0.9.7, afaict);
måndag 10 oktober 2005 16.27 skrev William A. Rowe, Jr.:
Oden Eriksson wrote:
And some investigations told me it requires apr 0.9.7, maybe the
autotools stuff should check for this or be documented?
Yup - apr 0.9.7 is part of the bundle. We can spell this out in the
announce, certainly,
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Yup - apr 0.9.7 is part of the bundle. We can spell this out in the
announce, certainly, and on the downloads page README - would that
suffice?
How horrible would it be to have the apr_reslist_invalidate patch
applied to the bundled apr?
ducks and runs /
--
Brian Akins wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Yup - apr 0.9.7 is part of the bundle. We can spell this out in the
announce, certainly, and on the downloads page README - would that
suffice?
How horrible would it be to have the apr_reslist_invalidate patch
applied to the bundled apr?
Paul Querna wrote:
Huh? It is already in 0.9.7 :) I committed it to the 0.9.x branch right
after 0.9.6 was released.
Thank you! I guess I didn't check the CHANGELOG closely enough.
hangs head in shame /
--
Brian Akins
Lead Systems Engineer
CNN Internet Technologies
måndag 10 oktober 2005 16.56 skrev Brian Akins:
Paul Querna wrote:
Huh? It is already in 0.9.7 :) I committed it to the 0.9.x branch right
after 0.9.6 was released.
Thank you! I guess I didn't check the CHANGELOG closely enough.
i think it's not there :)
--
Regards // Oden Eriksson
Brian Akins wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Yup - apr 0.9.7 is part of the bundle. We can spell this out in the
announce, certainly, and on the downloads page README - would that
suffice?
How horrible would it be to have the apr_reslist_invalidate patch
applied to the bundled apr?
Oden Eriksson wrote:
i think it's not there :)
Oden, just looked again, would you check your package signature?
b45f16a9878e709497820565d42b00b9 httpd-2.0.55.tar.gz
and ensure that you are building against the included srclib/apr/ and
not against some system installed 0.9.6 version?
Bill
måndag 10 oktober 2005 17.33 skrev William A. Rowe, Jr.:
Oden Eriksson wrote:
i think it's not there :)
Oden, just looked again, would you check your package signature?
b45f16a9878e709497820565d42b00b9 httpd-2.0.55.tar.gz
and ensure that you are building against the included srclib/apr/
+1 NetWare
Brad
On 10/9/2005 at 10:42:43 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The httpd-2.0.55 candidate, including win32 source .zip and
installers*,
is now available for testing at
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please review this candidate, and when
On Oct 9, 2005, at 9:42 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The httpd-2.0.55 candidate, including win32 source .zip and
installers*,
As of 17:59 CEST (15 minutes ago), 2.0.55 is running on
www.apache.org. Please report any anomalies.
We're now also running a very current version of mod_mbox
måndag 10 oktober 2005 17.28 skrev William A. Rowe, Jr.:
Brian Akins wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Yup - apr 0.9.7 is part of the bundle. We can spell this out in the
announce, certainly, and on the downloads page README - would that
suffice?
How horrible would it be to have the
Sander Temme wrote:
On Oct 9, 2005, at 9:42 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The httpd-2.0.55 candidate, including win32 source .zip and installers*,
As of 17:59 CEST (15 minutes ago), 2.0.55 is running on www.apache.org.
Please report any anomalies.
Ack, starting clock with 72 hours to
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 10:11:13AM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote:
+1 NetWare
Brad
BSD/OS using Openssl 0.9.8 is spot on!
On 10/9/2005 at 10:42:43 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The httpd-2.0.55 candidate, including win32 source .zip and
installers*,
is
Oden Eriksson wrote:
And some investigations told me it requires apr 0.9.7, maybe the autotools
stuff should check for this or be documented?
Yup - apr 0.9.7 is part of the bundle. We can spell this out in the
announce, certainly, and on the downloads page README - would that
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The httpd-2.0.55 candidate, including win32 source .zip and installers*,
is now available for testing at
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
My appologies; I should have provided this with the announcement to
testers@ and dev@, to avoid confusion;
Luc Pardon wrote:
Oden Eriksson wrote:
And some investigations told me it requires apr 0.9.7, maybe the autotools
stuff should check for this or be documented?
Yup - apr 0.9.7 is part of the bundle. We can spell this out in the
announce, certainly, and on the downloads page README - would
On Oct 10, 2005, at 7:32 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Brian Pane wrote:
I encountered lots of errors in perl-framework's t/TEST with prefork
on Darwin 8.2.0/PPC (OS X 10.4.2). I don't yet know whether these
are due to httpd-2.0.55 problems or just problems with my Perl
installation.
The httpd-2.0.55 candidate, including win32 source .zip and installers*,
is now available for testing at
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please review this candidate, and when responding, indicate the precise
operating system that you have tested.
Thank you for your assistance!
Bill
*
40 matches
Mail list logo
