You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2010/12/16 13:51:32 UTC
[VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
I expect that this will be the last alpha release, allowing
us to push on with Beta and finally(!!) a 2.4.0-GA.
Vote will close in 72 hours.
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Thursday 16 December 2010, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
+1 (tested on Debian/Linux)
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 12/21/2010 9:34 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 20, 2010, at 6:43 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/16/2010 6:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>>>>
>>>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>>>
>>>> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
>>>
>>> -1 on httpd-2.3.10-deps. pcre is missing, although apr, apr-util and
>>> even expat are there.
>>
>> Is that a regression?
>
> Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but I can't find pcre in the
> 2.3.6 nor the 2.3.8 deps either...
Irrelevant, you stated this is the final alpha, last chance to fix the
packaging to the alignment of beta.
But I'm reviewing the vote, I really don't know where we got to last
time this was discussed, it went in circles a few times, I don't see
the [Vote][Result]
When I posted the first message below, pgollucci and nikke concured,
pquerna and sctemme appeared to disagree with bundling it. Michael was
especially confused by the missing pcre (AIX).
In 2.3.8 non-vote discussion thread, guenter raised this again. pquerna
was extremely opposed to bundling it (2nd attach below), I agreed for the
converse reason that I expressed in the prior discussion. sctemme had some
ambiguous middle ground which seemed quite sane.
So the more that I think about it, there are vulnerable pcre's floating
around, which end up being httpd vulnerabilities, and by distributing the
freshest pcre 8.1 (whatever remains binary compatible) as we continue to
also ship apr makes sense. I'm in favor of making things easy on our
users, keeping httpd more secure, but not forcing any particular distro
of pcre on the users and let them default to their OS provided flavor.
We want -alpha, -beta adoption, provide a package called -deps, and don't
ship our manitory deps; that seems stupid.
For the reasons pquerna so elegantly expressed, it's also stupid to ship
apr-util and apr, when those vulnerabilities also roll down on httpd, and
users think they are blocked on a particular httpd (or httpd-deps) package.
So my vote on -deps becomes -0, and I will no longer vote on it at all
since the inclusion and discussion of -deps is intellectually inconsistent.
It won't be used anyways for packaging httpd binaries since I'd simply pick
up the current apr/apr-util/openssl/zlib/pcre anyways. I don't see a reason
to rely on a package of half of the -deps. It doesn't hurt or harm me, but
adoption is a concern.
I'm +1 on eliminating -deps altogether, but don't believe that such a
proposal has popular support.
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Dec 20, 2010, at 6:43 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 12/16/2010 6:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>>>
>>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>>
>>> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
>>
>> -1 on httpd-2.3.10-deps. pcre is missing, although apr, apr-util and
>> even expat are there.
>>
>
> Is that a regression?
>
Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but I can't find pcre in the
2.3.6 nor the 2.3.8 deps either...
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
On Dec 20, 2010, at 6:43 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 6:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>>
>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>
>> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
>
> -1 on httpd-2.3.10-deps. pcre is missing, although apr, apr-util and
> even expat are there.
>
Is that a regression?
> As this is a byproduct of roll-release.sh scripts, and isn't a concern
> of httpd svn tags, but rather a concern of the deps script, I'd suggest
> it's just fine to reroll deps without burning a rev number. Nothing
> in httpd/trunk/ identifies the revs of apr, apr-util, expat or pcre
> which are to be bundled.
>
> We have pcre here in; http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/vendor/pcre/
> our history for checkout.
>
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 21.12.2010 00:43, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 6:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>>
>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>
>> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
>
> -1 on httpd-2.3.10-deps. pcre is missing, although apr, apr-util and
> even expat are there.
As Jim wrote its not a regression. There was some discussion about
whether to include PCRE in the deps tarball when we voted on 2.3.8. The
majority was against including it and I think it was your opinion too.
Some made the suggestion of making building against an external pcre
easier for Netware and Windows.
See the discusion at
http://marc.info/?t=128266837200001&r=1&w=2
starting with the second mail (from Günter).
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 12/16/2010 6:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
-1 on httpd-2.3.10-deps. pcre is missing, although apr, apr-util and
even expat are there.
As this is a byproduct of roll-release.sh scripts, and isn't a concern
of httpd svn tags, but rather a concern of the deps script, I'd suggest
it's just fine to reroll deps without burning a rev number. Nothing
in httpd/trunk/ identifies the revs of apr, apr-util, expat or pcre
which are to be bundled.
We have pcre here in; http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/vendor/pcre/
our history for checkout.
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
+1 100% pass on AIX 6.1/PPC32/XLC
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Dec 16, 2010, at 7:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
>
> I expect that this will be the last alpha release, allowing
> us to push on with Beta and finally(!!) a 2.4.0-GA.
>
> Vote will close in 72 hours.
>
+1
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Dec 16, 2010, at 7:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
>
> I expect that this will be the last alpha release, allowing
> us to push on with Beta and finally(!!) a 2.4.0-GA.
>
> Vote will close in 72 hours.
>
Anyone else willing to take a little time and vote
on these puppies??
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by Mario Brandt <jb...@gmail.com>.
+1 Win7 x86 and x64 build
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 13:51, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
>
> I expect that this will be the last alpha release, allowing
> us to push on with Beta and finally(!!) a 2.4.0-GA.
>
> Vote will close in 72 hours.
>
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
On Dec 21, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 21.12.2010 19:00, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> As such, I'm guessing I can close the vote with at least
>> 3 (binding) +1 votes.
>
> Isn't it 4? You, Eric, Stefan and me? I know I'm not listed in the file but was added to the PMC in October. I just notified Bill about being missing from the files/ldap.
>
Yep... I note "at least 3" because that's the bar to entry...
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 21.12.2010 19:26, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 12/21/2010 12:11 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>
>> I just notified Bill about being missing from the files/ldap.
>
> This is now fixed, sorry Rainer!
No prob, thanks for fixing!
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 12/21/2010 12:11 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> I just notified Bill about being missing from the files/ldap.
This is now fixed, sorry Rainer!
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 21.12.2010 19:00, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> As such, I'm guessing I can close the vote with at least
> 3 (binding) +1 votes.
Isn't it 4? You, Eric, Stefan and me? I know I'm not listed in the file
but was added to the PMC in October. I just notified Bill about being
missing from the files/ldap.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 12/21/2010 12:00 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> See that's the rub: to get the untarred dirs to have that
> name, I need to reroll the whole thing. I'd prefer not
> having to do so at this point.
I agree, if you are willing to rename the download. To fix the
internal labels in the md5 and sha1 hashes, rerunning our little
sign sh script in the release tools chain is probably simplest.
> As such, I'm guessing I can close the vote with at least
> 3 (binding) +1 votes.
Yup!
[RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Dec 21, 2010, at 12:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 12/21/2010 10:38 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:16 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/16/2010 6:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>>>>
>>>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>>>
>>>> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
>>>
>>> +1 to httpd-2.3.10-alpha.tar.gz/bz2
>>> (to the contents of httpd-2.3.10.tar.gz - but -1 to the current package name)
>>
>> I've no idea how to grok this... do you want a rename of
>> the archive names *as well as the resulting untarred dir*
>> to be renamed or just the tar.* files?
>
> EDONTCARE, it's the package name I'm concerned about. So, let's refer to
> 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 which were named correctly... looking at archive.a.o/dist/httpd
>
> drwxr-xr-x 0 chip chip 0 Nov 25 2009 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/
> -rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 0 Nov 25 2009 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/.deps
> -rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 8781 May 8 2009 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/.gdbinit
> -rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 14882 Feb 14 2008 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/ABOUT_APACHE
> ...
See that's the rub: to get the untarred dirs to have that
name, I need to reroll the whole thing. I'd prefer not
having to do so at this point.
As such, I'm guessing I can close the vote with at least
3 (binding) +1 votes.
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 12/21/2010 10:38 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:16 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 12/16/2010 6:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>>>
>>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>>
>>> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
>>
>> +1 to httpd-2.3.10-alpha.tar.gz/bz2
>> (to the contents of httpd-2.3.10.tar.gz - but -1 to the current package name)
>
> I've no idea how to grok this... do you want a rename of
> the archive names *as well as the resulting untarred dir*
> to be renamed or just the tar.* files?
EDONTCARE, it's the package name I'm concerned about. So, let's refer to
2.3.4 and 2.3.5 which were named correctly... looking at archive.a.o/dist/httpd
drwxr-xr-x 0 chip chip 0 Nov 25 2009 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/
-rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 0 Nov 25 2009 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/.deps
-rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 8781 May 8 2009 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/.gdbinit
-rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 14882 Feb 14 2008 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/ABOUT_APACHE
...
drwxr-xr-x 0 chip chip 0 Jan 21 2010 httpd-2.3.5-alpha/
-rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 0 Jan 21 2010 httpd-2.3.5-alpha/.deps
-rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 8781 May 8 2009 httpd-2.3.5-alpha/.gdbinit
-rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 14882 Feb 14 2008 httpd-2.3.5-alpha/ABOUT_APACHE
...
drwxr-xr-x 0 chip users 0 Jun 24 2005 httpd-2.1.6-alpha
drwxr-xr-x 0 chip users 0 Jun 24 2005 httpd-2.1.6-alpha/os
drwxr-xr-x 0 chip users 0 Jun 24 2005 httpd-2.1.6-alpha/os/win32
-rw-r--r-- 0 chip users 3871 Feb 18 2005 httpd-2.1.6-alpha/os/win32/os.h
and finally, the last beta we shipped...
drwxr-xr-x 0 chip chip 0 Oct 30 2005 httpd-2.1.9-beta/
drwxr-xr-x 0 chip chip 0 Oct 30 2005 httpd-2.1.9-beta/os/
drwxr-xr-x 0 chip chip 0 Oct 30 2005 httpd-2.1.9-beta/os/os2/
-rw-r--r-- 0 chip chip 1185 Sep 29 2005 httpd-2.1.9-beta/os/os2/os.h
So if you want to be 100% consistent, it appears we've embedded the path into
the tarballs, but I don't care if that convention is changed, or not. I'm 100%
certain there were packages in the 2.0-alpha series that did /not/ include the
tag in the tarball, because they would be voted up to -alpha, -beta, or GA in
the end. I'm almost certain that the internal naming wasn't decided by vote
on the list, and that it's been the preference of the RM.
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:16 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 6:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>>
>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>
>> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
>
> +1 to httpd-2.3.10-alpha.tar.gz/bz2
> (to the contents of httpd-2.3.10.tar.gz - but -1 to the current package name)
>
I've no idea how to grok this... do you want a rename of
the archive names *as well as the resulting untarred dir*
to be renamed or just the tar.* files?
> -1 to httpd-2.3.10-deps.tar.gz/bz2 (only for missing pcre and -alpha-deps rename)
>
Again, the pcre stuff does not appear to be a regression,
and cannot grok your desire on the rename...
Anyone else have time to vote so we can release today?
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 12/16/2010 6:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
+1 to httpd-2.3.10-alpha.tar.gz/bz2
(to the contents of httpd-2.3.10.tar.gz - but -1 to the current package name)
-1 to httpd-2.3.10-deps.tar.gz/bz2 (only for missing pcre and -alpha-deps rename)
Note that 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 packages are correct on archive.a.o/dist/httpd,
however the 2.3.6 and 2.3.8 package names and now 2.3.10 are all incorrect,
they are missing their -alpha designations.
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 16.12.2010 13:51, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
>
> I expect that this will be the last alpha release, allowing
> us to push on with Beta and finally(!!) a 2.4.0-GA.
>
> Vote will close in 72 hours.
+1 (alpha)
- Sigs and hashes OK
- contents of tarballs identical
- contents of tag and tarballs identical
except for expected deltas plus obsolete
ssl expression parser files
(only cosmetic, now fixed in roll script)
Build on Solaris 8+10 Sparc, SuSE 10 32 and RHEL 5 64
- with shared and with static modules
- with module sets none, few, most, all
- against bundled APR, external APR/APU 1.4/1.3 and external trunk APR
- using expat 2.0.1, pcre 8.11, openssl 0.9.8q, lua 5.1.4
Passed test framework on all those platforms for all available MPMs
(except simple)
- with shared and static modules using the "all" module set
- with bundled APR, external APR 1.4 and external trunk APR
I has some problems when trying to build trunk APR with --disable-dso,
but will write a separate mail about that.
Regards,
Rainer