Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 it into the unpacked httpd-2.0.55 source tarball, in order to package? Secondly the httpd.spec file contains version specific information (the version number, the MMN, etc) that would be both a serious pain to maintain separately by a packager and a serious pain to tie up with the required source by a person building an RPM. 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. Upstream and packagers work in clearly separated and in my view it's good. But my view can be twisted since there are propably a bit different *standards* how is package provided in DEB and RPM world, ie. debianers are not used to compile packages themselves a lot, they use packages provided by their distribution. O. P.S.: Please, keep it cool and don't flame. -- Ondrej Sury [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 handling packaging. In the case of RPM, it's rpmbuild --rebuild yyy.src.rpm, or rpmbuild -tb yyy.tar.gz. Debian does it differently, just like Solaris pkg does it differently, but it makes no difference. I have in the past wasted *hours* of time because the packager of an RPM expected the user to just know that their package had some weird custom process of producing an RPM, and when this was posted as a bug the answer was oh, you should have read the documentation. I had read the documentation: the rpm man page, which clearly details the --rebuild and -tX options. With packaging, the needs of the users come first, the needs of the packager comes second. Sure, it will be nice and neat for packagers to have packaging scripts in a single archive, but that's a pain for the end user. Upstream and packagers work in clearly separated and in my view it's good. But my view can be twisted since there are propably a bit different *standards* how is package provided in DEB and RPM world, ie. debianers are not used to compile packages themselves a lot, they use packages provided by their distribution. Virtually all distros offer a somewhat conservative approach to packaging - they are typically a few versions behind, and there are good reasons for this. 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 group of people. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 group of people. 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? Ondrej. -- Ondrej Sury [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 vendors offering their own competing and incompatible spec files. I am not sure what problem you are trying to solve by removing the specfile? Regards, Graham --
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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) so that our proxies start to catch up. FYI I staged, did not svn up the 1.3.34 announce site work for Jim's behalf - so we are 1/2 there. Docs team; feel free to ressurect or add Announcement2.0.txt/.html.lang, and even Announcement1.3.txt/.html.lang - the security notes in 2.0 I'm sure are quite a bit of work to translate. These are all in the https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/dist/ repository. You're also welcome to work up Announcement2.1-beta.txt/.html.lang if you like. Note I've eliminated the Announcement's German and Japanese translations are available - and rather indicate that additional translations may become available so that users bother to check, should they require a native translation. Bill
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 package? I would say yes for two reasons, firstly in the RPM world this is the norm: rpmbuild -tb httpd-2.0.55.tar.gz Introducing special build instructions means a lot of time wasted while the user tries to figure out why the expected behaviour doesn't work. Secondly the httpd.spec file contains version specific information (the version number, the MMN, etc) that would be both a serious pain to maintain separately by a packager and a serious pain to tie up with the required source by a person building an RPM. Both RPM and PKG are done with simple scripts, separating them from the tarball turns a simple exercise into a complex one. Regards, Graham --
Re: [pre-release] rpm spec file (was: Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing)
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 bundled apr stuff into separate rpm packages itself. APR is already available as an RPM, both for the 0.9 and 1.x trees, and 0.9 and 1.x can be installed simultaneously. See the binaries/rpm directory in the download section for APR. I'm only really familiar with rpm-ing on RedHat platforms, but AFAIK the rpm specs differ in details, so you'd probably have to populate the rpm subdir with working spec files for various platforms (collected after the fact g). Or add platform-specific subdirs under rpm/. Different spec files for different platforms should be avoided as much as possible. Each distro will release an httpd version + their custom patches for the purposes of that distro anyway, Apache isn't a distro, so can release a clean httpd as is without any patches. The httpd.spec file, as included in the tarball, requires apr and apr-util and the corresponding devel packages to be installed as separate rpm's. Although the APR source code is present in the httpd tarball, there are currently no APR spec files. You can't build the APR rpm's from the httpd.spec file either. In other words, if you want to build httpd from the included spec file, you'll first have to go and find the APR rpm's in the usual places and install them. There are APR spec files in the APR and APR-util archives. They are removed from the apr tree in the httpd build, as rpm gets confused is there is more than one spec file in a tarball (in other words, rpmbuild -tb is not possible otherwise). Most people building rpm's themselves (as opposed to installing pre-built binary rpm's) would IMO be able to cope with that. In fact, I'd expect them to have pre-existing spec files anyway. Therefore, another solution would be to lift httpd.spec out of the 2.0.55 tarball altogether (but that's frozen, right?). If you leave it in, changing the dependencies to properly require 0.9.7 (or newer?) is a trivial change to build/rpm/httpd.spec.in. So trivial in fact that I'm willing to provide a patch g. Please do :) There is one fix I need to make to the httpd.in file as released concerning the xml doc files. The spec file tries to remove the xml files, however the build was changed to remove them. Regards, Graham --
Re: [pre-release] rpm spec file (was: Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing)
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 on APR. Definitely. I missed the fact that apr 0.9 and 1.x can coexist. or b) build the bundled apr stuff into separate rpm packages itself. APR is already available as an RPM, both for the 0.9 and 1.x trees, and 0.9 and 1.x can be installed simultaneously. See the binaries/rpm directory in the download section for APR. 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 of defeats the purposo of bundling APR. I'm only really familiar with rpm-ing on RedHat platforms, but AFAIK the rpm specs differ in details, so you'd probably have to populate the rpm subdir with working spec files for various platforms (collected after the fact g). Or add platform-specific subdirs under rpm/. Different spec files for different platforms should be avoided as much as possible. Each distro will release an httpd version + their custom patches for the purposes of that distro anyway, Apache isn't a distro, so can release a clean httpd as is without any patches. Agreed on both counts. That (no patches) is one of the reasons why I'm building my own. But I think there are sometimes other differencies than just patches, no ? For example, installing into platform-dependent dirs or other variations in configure options ? Or init script stuff ? Note that I'm not arguing, just wondering. Of course, having multiple spec files (for different platforms) will break rpmbuild -tb big time. The httpd.spec file, as included in the tarball, requires apr and apr-util and the corresponding devel packages to be installed as separate rpm's. Although the APR source code is present in the httpd tarball, there are currently no APR spec files. You can't build the APR rpm's from the httpd.spec file either. In other words, if you want to build httpd from the included spec file, you'll first have to go and find the APR rpm's in the usual places and install them. There are APR spec files in the APR and APR-util archives. They are removed from the apr tree in the httpd build, as rpm gets confused is there is more than one spec file in a tarball (in other words, rpmbuild -tb is not possible otherwise). I see. But couldn't you leave them sitting in srclib/apr, where rpmbuild -tb won't see them ? Or better, merge them into httpd.spec, so that rpmbuild -tb will produce apr packages from the bundled code in one go ? Would there be any objections against the latter ? After all, httpd.spec already produces the httpd, httpd-devel, httpd-manual and mod_ssl rpm's. Why not apr, apr-util, apr-devel and apr-util-devel as well ? Nobody obliges you to install the whole set. If you leave it in, changing the dependencies to properly require 0.9.7 (or newer?) is a trivial change to build/rpm/httpd.spec.in. So trivial in fact that I'm willing to provide a patch g. Please do :) From a later message of yours, it seems it's too late already g. As an aside, is there no configure macro somewhere (something like APR_VERSION) that would avoid having to hard-code it in httpd.spec.in ? Luc
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 wonder. We provide SRPMs for building, which contain fixed httpd.spec files. Either that or the i386 builds work as is for people on i386 platforms. I personally deploy from a locally built SRPM, but that's me. Ideally the rpm builds should be continuously integrated using something like gump, so we catch the problem as it happens, rather than after release. I don't think having to un-tar a tarball, and mv a file in place is that big an imposition on a packager. Anything that's non obvious or non standard is definitely an imposition on a packager. Don't make the packager do something that can be (and already is) easily automated :) Regards, Graham --
Re: [pre-release] rpm spec file (was: Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing)
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 of defeats the purposo of bundling APR. The APR bundled with source is historical - the APR library grew out of the httpd code, and was only recently promoted to a library in it's own right. The removal of APR from the httpd has been discussed a number of times, and I think will probably happen eventually once APR is widespread on it's own. Most of the major distros already distribute httpd and apr separately as APR v0.9.x and httpd v2.0.x (Redhat does anyway), so in the RPM world this isn't too much of a surprise to have them separate. Agreed on both counts. That (no patches) is one of the reasons why I'm building my own. But I think there are sometimes other differencies than just patches, no ? For example, installing into platform-dependent dirs or other variations in configure options ? Or init script stuff ? The spec file has slowly got simpler and simpler, with more and more of the special stuff being removed from the spec file, falling back on the normal httpd build process. Ideally the spec file should eventually be trivial, it shouldn't be necessary to have to move files and directories around in a spec file when the httpd build process contains an option to choose a directory layout already. I see. But couldn't you leave them sitting in srclib/apr, where rpmbuild -tb won't see them ? Or better, merge them into httpd.spec, so that rpmbuild -tb will produce apr packages from the bundled code in one go ? There is a drive to get APR to stand on it's own as much as possible. Combining the packaging with httpd is going backwards on a process that should eventually see apr removed from the httpd tree entirely. From a later message of yours, it seems it's too late already g. I just created a patch for this, just battling to test it (stupid working directories copied from MacOSX to Fedora grumble). As an aside, is there no configure macro somewhere (something like APR_VERSION) that would avoid having to hard-code it in httpd.spec.in ? If there is this would be very useful, will have to investigate. Regards, Graham --
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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. So, would it be so bad a thing if the release tarball wasn't itself buildable? What is the number of commands it takes to turn an SRPM into a binary .rpm ? Either that or the i386 builds work as is for people on i386 platforms. I personally deploy from a locally built SRPM, but that's me. I deploy a locally built .deb, and that's much more work, so building an rpm locally might be a lot more common than I suspect. Ideally the rpm builds should be continuously integrated using something like gump, so we catch the problem as it happens, rather than after release. +1 I don't think having to un-tar a tarball, and mv a file in place is that big an imposition on a packager. Anything that's non obvious or non standard is definitely an imposition on a packager. Don't make the packager do something that can be (and already is) easily automated :) Well to be honest, I'm kind of confused as to why the source tarball should be doing any of the packager's work, but I guess that's a different argument :-) -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 in itself be buildable, yes. Trouble is I sometime don't get to test the RPM build on time, and the release goes out the door with a broken spec file :( What is the number of commands it takes to turn an SRPM into a binary .rpm ? rpmbuild --rebuild httpd-2.0.55-1.src.rpm I deploy a locally built .deb, and that's much more work, so building an rpm locally might be a lot more common than I suspect. We currently have build scripts/spec file for RPM and for Solais PKG, is it difficult to get httpd to be built as a .deb out the box? I know precious little about .deb packaging. Well to be honest, I'm kind of confused as to why the source tarball should be doing any of the packager's work, but I guess that's a different argument :-) RPM has features that make it easy to go from tarball to RPM in a single step, and follows the principle of least astonishment :) Regards, Graham --
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 httpd/httpd/win32-msi/trunk/ containing the win32 packaging flavor. It doesn't get fixed for a specific release until we know exactly what needed to be fixed :) I'm concerned that the current .spec solution is wrong; it's very platform specific (platform meaning deployment mechanics, in this case, I'm not slamming non-unix rpm implementations). Perhaps we rejigger the tree to httpd/ package/ roll-release/ win32-msi/ rpm/ pkg/ Thoughts? The spec file needs to end up as httpd.spec in the root of the tarball so that rpmbuild -tb httpd-2.0.55.tar.gz works, so keeping it in a separate tree isn't going to work properly. The problem remains though - people change stuff within the tree, which affects the packaging, and this only surfaces when a release is rolled. 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 package? Bill
[pre-release] rpm spec file (was: Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing)
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 2.0 httpd.spec files should either a) not require pre-installed apr packages and build apr as part of the httpd rpm, or b) build the bundled apr stuff into separate rpm packages itself. Solution a) would be best if httpd 2.0.55 absolutely requires apr 0.9.7 and nothing else, i.e. does not work with apr 1.2.1 or not even with 0.9.8 if/when that comes out. Otherwise, solution b) would be the way to go. Again, I realize that all this has been discussed at length on this list. Normally I would look at the archives but the countdown has started and my time is limited, so it's quicker to ask. For me, that is ... Coming back to rpm's for the moment; I do *not* mean to suggest that this is the best solution for any specific platform or distribution method, be it .rpm, .depot, .pkg, .msi, or any other facility. Wise, very. Any suggestion in that area is likely to spark a flame war g. snip I'm concerned that the current .spec solution is wrong; it's very platform specific (platform meaning deployment mechanics, in this case, I'm not slamming non-unix rpm implementations). Perhaps we rejigger the tree to httpd/ package/ roll-release/ win32-msi/ rpm/ pkg/ Thoughts? Not really. The current build/rpm seems fine to me, but I wouldn't mind if it changed either. I'm only really familiar with rpm-ing on RedHat platforms, but AFAIK the rpm specs differ in details, so you'd probably have to populate the rpm subdir with working spec files for various platforms (collected after the fact g). Or add platform-specific subdirs under rpm/. In the interim; is this a showstopper? Do we generally do the right thing (e.g. without changes, can we package up using the existing rpm files?) Obviously 2.0.54 was mispackaged as well, it's minimum apr package dependency should have been 0.9.6 apr, not 0.9.5. Bill Showstopper probably not, as long as you document that the spec file is broken, for example: The httpd.spec file, as included in the tarball, requires apr and apr-util and the corresponding devel packages to be installed as separate rpm's. Although the APR source code is present in the httpd tarball, there are currently no APR spec files. You can't build the APR rpm's from the httpd.spec file either. In other words, if you want to build httpd from the included spec file, you'll first have to go and find the APR rpm's in the usual places and install them. Most people building rpm's themselves (as opposed to installing pre-built binary rpm's) would IMO be able to cope with that. In fact, I'd expect them to have pre-existing spec files anyway. Therefore, another solution would be to lift httpd.spec out of the 2.0.55 tarball altogether (but that's frozen, right?). If you leave it in, changing the dependencies to properly require 0.9.7 (or newer?) is a trivial change to build/rpm/httpd.spec.in. So trivial in fact that I'm willing to provide a patch g. Beyond that, any fix I can offer (e.g. to build separate apr packages) would only be tested on my systems. Luc Pardon
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 installation. Brian 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*, 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 * note that win32 binary installers were uploaded only at this hour, and it will take up to another two hours for the public server to resync. Thanks for your patience.
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 that you have tested. There's no fix for CAN-2005-2088 in this one. -- Regards // Oden Eriksson Mandriva: http://www.mandriva.com NUX: http://nux.se
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 when responding, indicate the precise operating system that you have tested. There's no fix for CAN-2005-2088 in this one. Duh! Too early in the morning... -- Regards // Oden Eriksson Mandriva: http://www.mandriva.com NUX: http://nux.se
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 my Darwin 8.2.0. I didn't see any tests being run though, is the test suite fired off from the binbuild script? Regards, Graham --
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 that you have tested. Thank you for your assistance! Bill * note that win32 binary installers were uploaded only at this hour, and it will take up to another two hours for the public server to resync. Thanks for your patience. I saw this: Cannot load /etc/httpd/modules/mod_cgi.so into server: /etc/httpd/modules/mod_cgi.so: undefined symbol: apr_procattr_addrspace_set And some investigations told me it requires apr 0.9.7, maybe the autotools stuff should check for this or be documented? -- Regards // Oden Eriksson Mandriva: http://www.mandriva.com NUX: http://nux.se
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 the build/binbuild.sh script, and httpd built clean on my Darwin 8.2.0. I didn't see any tests being run though, is the test suite fired off from the binbuild script? The test suite has to be downloaded and run separately. Basically, - do a make install of the httpd - checkout asf/repos/httpd/test/trunk from SVN - cd to the perl-framework subdirectory - perl Makefile.pl -apxs /path/to/the/httpd/installation/bin/apxs - ./t/TEST Brian
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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?
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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); http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34332 Bill
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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, and on the downloads page README - would that suffice? Yep. Thanks. -- Regards // Oden Eriksson Mandriva: http://www.mandriva.com NUX: http://nux.se
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 Lead Systems Engineer CNN Internet Technologies
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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? Huh? It is already in 0.9.7 :) I committed it to the 0.9.x branch right after 0.9.6 was released. -Paul
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 Mandriva: http://www.mandriva.com NUX: http://nux.se
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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? I'm wondering if we all woke up this morning on different planets :) $ cd httpd-2.0.55 $ grep -r apr_reslist_invalidate * srclib/apr-util/include/apr_reslist.h:APU_DECLARE(apr_status_t) apr_reslist_invalidate(apr_reslist_t *reslist, srclib/apr-util/misc/apr_reslist.c:APU_DECLARE(apr_status_t) apr_reslist_invalidate(apr_reslist_t *reslist, srclib/apr-util/CHANGES: *) Backport the apr_reslist_timeout_set and apr_reslist_invalidate Which patch are you thinking about? The next window of opportunity is apr-0.9.8, which if it's substantial, probably will have its day before 2.0.56. With several other apr-based projects, including arbitrary patches in the release tarball is a non-starter. If you have additional patches for some specific cases, we can consider adding them in dist/httpd/ to patches/apply_to_2.0.55/. Bill
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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/ and not against some system installed 0.9.6 version? Argh! I looked in the wrong place (wrong changelog). Sorry for the noise. Anyway, 2.0.55 works for me on my Mandriva boxes. -- Regards // Oden Eriksson Mandriva: http://www.mandriva.com NUX: http://nux.se
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
+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 responding, indicate the precise operating system that you have tested. Thank you for your assistance! Bill * note that win32 binary installers were uploaded only at this hour, and it will take up to another two hours for the public server to resync. Thanks for your patience.
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 (tagged www.apache.org-20051010). No cores so far but I'll keep an eye on it. S. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.temme.net/sander/ PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 apr_reslist_invalidate patch applied to the bundled apr? I'm wondering if we all woke up this morning on different planets :) I must have :) -- Regards // Oden Eriksson Mandriva: http://www.mandriva.com NUX: http://nux.se
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 GA, contingent upon an absence of problem reports (specificially regressions). We're now also running a very current version of mod_mbox (tagged www.apache.org-20051010). No cores so far but I'll keep an eye on it. Nice! Hope this licks the earlier chaos. Bill
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 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 * note that win32 binary installers were uploaded only at this hour, and it will take up to another two hours for the public server to resync. Thanks for your patience. - 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! Better to serve in Heaven that to Rule in Hell. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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? There seems to be a bug in the httpd.spec file. It says: Requires: apr = 0.9.5, apr-util 0.9.5 and the devel packages (on the httpd package specs) have no version number: BuildPrereq: apr-devel, apr-util-devel Also, the changelog section in the spec file does not show the upping to 2.0.55. The last documented chenge is for 2.0.53. And it says: changed build to use external apr and apr-util. This confuses me, since apr seems to be present in the 2.0.53 and 2.0.55 tarballs ... Sure enough, 2.0.55 compiles just fine using my old spec file (derived from an old RedHat httpd 2.0.44 spec file). The resulting httpd rpm package does contain libapr and libaprutil 0.9.7. However, with the spec file from the tarball (with the apr BuildPrereq's commented out to get it to confgure/make), I get compile errors. I plead guilty to not having followed the apr-related threads, but I'd expect the RPM spec file to keep me out of trouble with any deps. IMHO, it should rpmbuild right out of the box. If somebody can get me updated on the status of apr (version, bundled or not) and on what the spec file is trying to accomplish (e.g. separate apr packages), I'd probably be able to fix it myself. Luc Pardon Skopos Consulting Belgium
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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; http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/CHANGES_2.0.55 includes the summary of the APR libraries as well as HTTP Server, since 2.0.54 (apr 0.9.6). Bill
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 that suffice? There seems to be a bug in the httpd.spec file. It says: Requires: apr = 0.9.5, apr-util 0.9.5 and the devel packages (on the httpd package specs) have no version number: BuildPrereq: apr-devel, apr-util-devel Also, the changelog section in the spec file does not show the upping to 2.0.55. The last documented chenge is for 2.0.53. And it says: changed build to use external apr and apr-util. This confuses me, since apr seems to be present in the 2.0.53 and 2.0.55 tarballs ... APR was also present in the 2.0.54 tarball. 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. Coming back to rpm's for the moment; I do *not* mean to suggest that this is the best solution for any specific platform or distribution method, be it .rpm, .depot, .pkg, .msi, or any other facility. 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 httpd/httpd/win32-msi/trunk/ containing the win32 packaging flavor. It doesn't get fixed for a specific release until we know exactly what needed to be fixed :) I'm concerned that the current .spec solution is wrong; it's very platform specific (platform meaning deployment mechanics, in this case, I'm not slamming non-unix rpm implementations). Perhaps we rejigger the tree to httpd/ package/ roll-release/ win32-msi/ rpm/ pkg/ Thoughts? In the interim; is this a showstopper? Do we generally do the right thing (e.g. without changes, can we package up using the existing rpm files?) Obviously 2.0.54 was mispackaged as well, it's minimum apr package dependency should have been 0.9.6 apr, not 0.9.5. Bill
Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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. Hmmm... review this bug (not fixed in 0.9.7, afaict); http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34332 It looks like most of the errors I saw were due to environmental problems. I just cleaned up my Perl installation on OS X, and now there's just one test case that's failing now: test 10 of t/apache/limits.t. I _think_ the fix for 34332 is in apr-0.9.7; the CHANGES file includes: *) Fix issue with poll() followed by net I/O yielding EAGAIN on Mac OS 10.4 (Darwin 8). [Wilfredo Sanchez] I probably won't be able to look at that failed test case in limits.t in detail for a few days. If anybody else with OS X has time to test 2.0.55 before then, I'd be grateful. Thanks, Brian
[pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing
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 * note that win32 binary installers were uploaded only at this hour, and it will take up to another two hours for the public server to resync. Thanks for your patience.
