You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu> on 2002/05/06 07:02:04 UTC
2.0.36 release
+1 for GA. Let's get this bad boy out the door. I'm sick of dealing with
duplicate PRs on the same three bugs in 2.0.35. :)
--Cliff
Re: 2.0.36 .zip files WAS, RE: 2.0.36 release
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 01:40 PM 5/6/2002, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Is there any special voodoo to be performed to create the apache release
>zip files?
The nastiest. Need to build all, then export make files (so that all
dependent files
exist when creating dependencies) ... and pack up .mak, .dep, and .rc (awk
version
resource stubs) along with cr/lf'ed files.
Really requires VC5 or 6. I started some of that jazz in my win_compiling.html
file, and had started a file on how-to-roll-the-win32 zip files. I'll try
to wrap that up.
ITMT, I'll put together this .zip in a bit and try rolling a 2.0.36 binary
for release.
No later than tommorow morning.
>Could we document this somewhere?
I'll try to recall where I left things and pick them back up where I left off.
2.0.36 .zip files WAS, RE: 2.0.36 release
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Is there any special voodoo to be performed to create the apache release zip files?
Could we document this somewhere?
Sander
Re: 2.0.36 release
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
+1
>
> +1 for GA. Let's get this bad boy out the door. I'm sick of dealing with
> duplicate PRs on the same three bugs in 2.0.35. :)
>
> --Cliff
>
Re: 2.0.36 release
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>.
"Cliff Woolley" <jw...@virginia.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
>> No segfaults on worker un nagoya whatsoever...
>
> Great! Thanks for testing it out.
Was about time that we updated HTTPd on there... And Nagoya is the perfect
place to test out multi-threaded stuff (6 procs on Solaris 8)
>> The only thing "nagging" me is:
>> [Mon May 06 00:01:15 2002] [warn] child process 18743 still did not exit,
>> sending a SIGTERM
>> Not always processes die nicely...
>
> Yeah, that's a known nastiness with 2.0.36's worker. At least it shuts
> down, though. We'll clean it up for 2.0.37.
Was also in 2.0.35... It's just a PITA because you have to wait 30 secs
before doing a startup if one of the children didn't die...
--
I think that it's extremely foolish to name a server after the current U.S.
President. B.W. Fitzpatrick
Re: 2.0.36 release
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> No segfaults on worker un nagoya whatsoever...
Great! Thanks for testing it out.
> The only thing "nagging" me is:
> [Mon May 06 00:01:15 2002] [warn] child process 18743 still did not exit,
> sending a SIGTERM
> Not always processes die nicely...
Yeah, that's a known nastiness with 2.0.36's worker. At least it shuts
down, though. We'll clean it up for 2.0.37.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: 2.0.36 release
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>.
"Jeff Trawick" <tr...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu> writes:
>
>> +1 for GA. Let's get this bad boy out the door.
>
> +1 from me too
No segfaults on worker un nagoya whatsoever... The only thing "nagging" me
is:
[Mon May 06 00:01:15 2002] [warn] child process 18743 still did not exit,
sending a SIGTERM
[Mon May 06 00:01:15 2002] [warn] child process 18744 still did not exit,
sending a SIGTERM
[Mon May 06 00:01:15 2002] [warn] child process 18744 still did not exit,
sending a SIGTERM
[Mon May 06 00:01:16 2002] [warn] child process 18744 still did not exit,
sending a SIGTERM
[Mon May 06 00:01:21 2002] [error] child process 18744 still did not exit,
sending a SIGKILL
[Mon May 06 00:01:37 2002] [notice] SIGHUP received. Attempting to restart
[Mon May 06 00:01:38 2002] [notice] Apache/2.0.36 (Unix)
mod_webapp/1.2.0-dev configured -- resuming normal operations
Not always processes die nicely...
Pier
--
I think that it's extremely foolish to name a server after the current U.S.
President. B.W. Fitzpatrick
Re: 2.0.36 release
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu> writes:
> +1 for GA. Let's get this bad boy out the door.
+1 from me too
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: 2.0.36 release
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 09:08:53AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> If I counted right we have enough +1s for GA. I'll check back here in 12 hours
> or so to do the release. I won't have time before that, so hold on until then ;)
I'm +1 for GA here, but beware that byterange is broken when using
dynamic content. It was broken in 2.0.35, so this isn't new (and
why I'll still vote for GA). I'm finishing up a rewrite that should
fix that. Expect a commit shortly. -- justin
RE: 2.0.36 release
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:jwoolley@virginia.edu]
> Sent: 06 May 2002 07:02
> +1 for GA. Let's get this bad boy out the door. I'm sick of dealing with
> duplicate PRs on the same three bugs in 2.0.35. :)
>
> --Cliff
If I counted right we have enough +1s for GA. I'll check back here in 12 hours
or so to do the release. I won't have time before that, so hold on until then ;)
Sander
PS. Unless it wasn't obvious already +1 for GA... :)