You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2015/07/11 16:29:14 UTC
[VOTE] Release 2.2.30 as GA?
The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.30, can be found in;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
+/-1
[ ] Release 2.2.30 GA (apr 1.5.2, apr-util 1.5.4)
Win32 src to follow shortly, vote to run through 14:30 GMT Tuesday.
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.30 as GA?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 10:29 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:
> The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.30, can be found
> in;
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> +/-1
> [ ] Release 2.2.30 GA (apr 1.5.2, apr-util 1.5.4)
>
>
Thanks for RM-ing!
[-1] Don't release due to Windows build error for mod_proxy discussed in
this thread
I see no regressions when comparing with 2.2.29 on FreeBSD and Linux:
FreeBSD 10, 32-bit, no kernel accept filter loaded
2.2.30 with prefork
Test Summary Report
-------------------
t/modules/cgi.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 58 Failed: 3)
Failed tests: 55-57
t/security/CVE-2008-2364.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 3 Failed: 2)
Failed tests: 2-3
t/ssl/extlookup.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Failed: 1)
Failed test: 2
t/ssl/require.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 10 Failed: 1)
Failed test: 9
Files=110, Tests=4001, 134 wallclock secs ( 2.23 usr 0.54 sys + 50.54 cusr
12.99 csys = 66.30 CPU)
Result: FAIL
2.2.29 with prefork
Test Summary Report
-------------------
t/apache/chunkinput.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 37 Failed: 6)
Failed tests: 23, 25, 31, 33, 35, 37
t/modules/cgi.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 58 Failed: 3)
Failed tests: 55-57
t/security/CVE-2008-2364.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 3 Failed: 2)
Failed tests: 2-3
t/ssl/extlookup.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Failed: 1)
Failed test: 2
t/ssl/require.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 10 Failed: 1)
Failed test: 9
Files=110, Tests=4001, 123 wallclock secs ( 1.87 usr 0.51 sys + 43.73 cusr
11.53 csys = 57.64 CPU)
Result: FAIL
Ubuntu 12, 32-bit
2.2.30 with prefork
Test Summary Report
-------------------
t/filter/case.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Failed: 1)
Failed test: 2
t/modules/cgi.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 58 Failed: 3)
Failed tests: 55-57
t/security/CVE-2008-2364.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 3 Failed: 2)
Failed tests: 2-3
t/ssl/extlookup.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Failed: 1)
Failed test: 2
t/ssl/require.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 10 Failed: 1)
Failed test: 9
Files=110, Tests=3631, 128 wallclock secs ( 1.89 usr 0.23 sys + 41.57 cusr
9.45 csys = 53.14 CPU)
Result: FAIL
2.2.29 with prefork
Test Summary Report
-------------------
t/apache/chunkinput.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 37 Failed: 6)
Failed tests: 23, 25, 31, 33, 35, 37
t/filter/case.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Failed: 1)
Failed test: 2
t/modules/cgi.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 58 Failed: 3)
Failed tests: 55-57
t/security/CVE-2008-2364.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 3 Failed: 2)
Failed tests: 2-3
t/ssl/extlookup.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Failed: 1)
Failed test: 2
t/ssl/require.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 10 Failed: 1)
Failed test: 9
Files=110, Tests=3631, 123 wallclock secs ( 1.62 usr 0.27 sys + 40.51 cusr
8.77 csys = 51.17 CPU)
Result: FAIL
(my t/filter/case.t failures on Ubuntu are noise)
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.30 as GA?
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 10:29 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.30, can be found in;
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> +/-1
> [ ] Release 2.2.30 GA (apr 1.5.2, apr-util 1.5.4)
Thanks for RM'ing
+1, AIX/xlc/ppc64
Only failures in cgi.t (55-57) which seems to have been seen by others
in the past
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.30 as GA?
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:29 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> [+1] Release 2.2.30 GA (apr 1.5.2, apr-util 1.5.4)
Worker and prefork, included apr-1.5.2 and apr-util-1.5.4:
* Debian 8 - 64bit,
* Debian 7 - 64bit,
* Debian 6 - 64bit,
* Debian 6 - mixed 32/64bit system/kernel.
Thanks Bill for RM'ing.
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.30 as GA?
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Am 11.07.2015 um 16:29 schrieb William A Rowe Jr:
> The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.30, can be found in;
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> +/-1
> [+1] Release 2.2.30 GA (apr 1.5.2, apr-util 1.5.4)
>
> Win32 src to follow shortly, vote to run through 14:30 GMT Tuesday.
+1 to release, thanks for RMing
Details:
- Netware and Windows binary artefacts not checked (missing)
- signature and hashes OK
- key in KEYS file
- gz and bz2 contents identical
- no unexpected diff to svn tag
- built and tested on
- Solaris 8+10 Sparc
- Suse Linux Enterprise Server 10+11 (64 Bit)
- RedHat Enterprise Linux 6 (64Bit)
- builds fine using gcc (209 different build combinations)
- out of tree
- with "all", "most" and default module sets
- with either default (static) or shared linked modules
- MPMs prefork, worker, event (where applicable)
- dependencies apr/apu/expat/pcre:
a) all bundled
b) 1.5.2/1.5.4/2.1.0/8.37 (2 variants)
- OpenSSL 1.0.2c
- one build warning: lex.ssl_expr_yy.c:1460:
warning: ‘input’ defined but not used
- I expect configure to still fail on Linux with external non-system
PCRE. Not a regression, see my 2.2.23 voting mail for details.
- test suite ran for the builds with module set "all" and log levels
info and debug (168 variations)
- no test regressions w.r.t. at least 2.2.16-2.2.29:
- Failed test 2 in t/ssl/extlookup.t at line 27
- Failed test 9 in t/ssl/require.t at line 44
Happens always.
For details about both see my 2.2.19 voting mail.
- failed tests 2+3 in t/security/CVE-2008-2364.t when
using LWP 6.0.3 or above
Happens always.
For details about both see my 2.2.23 voting mail.
- Test 4 in t/modules/dav.t:
Happens for 19 out of 168 runs.
Creation, modified and now times not in the correct order.
This seems to be a system issue, all tests done on NFS,
many tested on virtualized guests.
Likely similar than what I observed for 2.4.
- Tests 55-57 of t/modules/cgi.t testing contents of ScriptLog.
Happens for 60 out of 168 runs.
Likely similar than what I observed for 2.4.
Fix probably by porting r1651085 from mod_cgi to mod_cgid.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.30 as GA?
Posted by Andy Wang <aw...@ptc.com>.
On 07/13/2015 05:27 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Andy Wang <aw...@ptc.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm running into a problem with mod_proxy_balancer unable to find
>> ap_proxy_set_scoreboard_lb on Windows.
>
> There is possibly a missing PROXY_DECLARE for ap_proxy_set_scoreboard_lb.
>
>>
>> I'm planning on going back and setting my environment back up with 2.2.30
>> tomorrow, but thought I should mention this now in case it's obvious to
>> someone.
>
> Maybe the attached patch helps?
Yup, that patch helped.
========== Build: 94 succeeded, 0 failed, 0 up-to-date, 0 skipped ==========
I haven't actually tested it yet, but it builds.
Thanks,
Andy
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.30 as GA?
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Andy Wang <aw...@ptc.com> wrote:
>
> I'm running into a problem with mod_proxy_balancer unable to find
> ap_proxy_set_scoreboard_lb on Windows.
There is possibly a missing PROXY_DECLARE for ap_proxy_set_scoreboard_lb.
>
> I'm planning on going back and setting my environment back up with 2.2.30
> tomorrow, but thought I should mention this now in case it's obvious to
> someone.
Maybe the attached patch helps?
Regards,
Yann.
Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.30 as GA?
Posted by Andy Wang <aw...@ptc.com>.
On 07/11/2015 09:29 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.30, can be found in;
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> +/-1
> [ ] Release 2.2.30 GA (apr 1.5.2, apr-util 1.5.4)
>
> Win32 src to follow shortly, vote to run through 14:30 GMT Tuesday.
I'm running into a problem with mod_proxy_balancer unable to find
ap_proxy_set_scoreboard_lb on Windows.
I reverted my build to 2.2.29 to make sure it wasn't me and 2.2.29
completed, and then I looked at the 2.2.30 changes and see this function
call was a new addition.
I'm planning on going back and setting my environment back up with
2.2.30 tomorrow, but thought I should mention this now in case it's
obvious to someone.
Thanks,
Andy