You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2004/09/22 15:29:09 UTC
[users@httpd] Removed 2.0.51 Win32 Binaries
The binaries for 2.0.51 have been removed from the www.apache.org/dist/
site, you can still find them in archive.apache.org/dist/.
However, due to CAN-2004-0811, I would strongly discourage you from
using these binaries.
I believe it's a disservice to repackage with the patch, since it's
ambiguous to the user if they have the original, or patched flavor
installed on a given box. The patch referred to is here:
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.0.51/CAN-2004-0811.patch
I'm prepared to reroll the Win32 installers this week for 2.0.52 - the
only question is, what other regressions did 2.0.51 introduce? May as
well fix all the newly introduced bugs and roll out 2.0.52 in the next
day or two.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: Removed 2.0.51 Win32 Binaries
Posted by Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>At 08:55 AM 9/22/2004, you wrote:
>
>
>>Perhaps the fix to bug #24801 I recently provided could be included as well...
>>
>>
>
>This patch?
>
>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=12817
>
>
Yep.
>I'm not as familiar with this cache code, Graham could you look at this?
>
>In any case, it's committed first to 2.1-dev, then reviewed by three
>folks, then committed back to 2.0. Unlikely to hit 2.0.52, but we will
>be releasing a 2.0.53 soon. If this is a regression from how 2.0.50
>worked, we would redouble our efforts to include it immediately.
>
>
This issue actually goes way, way back to auth_ldap 1.6.0 (i.e. the
rudedog.org Apache 1.3 module) at least. The same changes fix auth_ldap
1.6.0 by the way (though the patch needs to be altered slightly in that
case as some of the surrounding type names, etc, are different).
>With every release, we announce this version "is the best version
>available". When a regression of something that worked in the previous
>release suddenly breaks a new release, we work very hard to put it
>right again so users can adopt the latest version. It's a somewhat
>greater weight to get those re-fixed than to fix each and every
>outstanding bug.
>
>
Understood -- and, no, this does not fall into this category. This has
just been the one of the biggest issue with Apache for our customers (at
least that I am aware of) for quite some time.
>Participating on the dev list certainly will help get your patches
>reviewed more quickly, so thanks for pointing out that patch.
>
>
No problem. It was buried in my various overly verbose and numerous
postings regarding util_ldap from last weekend. [Sorry for the numerous
posts....]
--
Jess Holle
Re: LDAP segfault fixes and mixup
Posted by Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>.
Graham Leggett wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> This patch?
>>
>> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=12817
>>
>> I'm not as familiar with this cache code, Graham could you look at this?
>
>
> This is already committed to v2.1.0-dev, and is awaiting votes:
>
> *) Fix a segfault in the LDAP cache purge.
> modules/ldap/util_ldap_cache_mgr.c: 1.9
> +1: minfrin
> 0: bnicholes - backporting modules/ldap/util_ldap_cache_mgr.c:
> r1.7 below
> should eliminate the need to backport the "else" condition
> included
> in this patch.
>
> It seems though that the comment about the else condition is mixing up
> the patches - the above patch fixes util_ald_cache_purge(), while the
> v1.7 patch fixes *util_ald_create_caches() and is unrelated to the
> patch proposed.
Yes, there were 2 fixes in my original patch -- both to the same file
and both necessary in 2.0.x. Unfortunately, 1 of these already existed
in a slightly different form in 2.1...
--
Jess Holle
Re: LDAP segfault fixes and mixup
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Joe Orton wrote:
> I can't believe I have to write more than one e-mail about this --
> please go and *read* what you committed:
I did. Very carefully.
It would seem I looked at the original patch proposed, as well as the
patch v1.7. On investigation, the patch I was sent via email and got
committed as v1.9 was different to the patch posted in the bug report,
which contains no else condition.
I apologise for the confusion.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: LDAP segfault fixes and mixup (was: Removed 2.0.51 Win32 Binaries)
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 05:48:58PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> This is already committed to v2.1.0-dev, and is awaiting votes:
>
> *) Fix a segfault in the LDAP cache purge.
> modules/ldap/util_ldap_cache_mgr.c: 1.9
> +1: minfrin
> 0: bnicholes - backporting modules/ldap/util_ldap_cache_mgr.c:
> r1.7 below
> should eliminate the need to backport the "else" condition
> included
> in this patch.
>
> It seems though that the comment about the else condition is mixing up
> the patches - the above patch fixes util_ald_cache_purge(), while the
> v1.7 patch fixes *util_ald_create_caches() and is unrelated to the patch
> proposed.
I can't believe I have to write more than one e-mail about this --
please go and *read* what you committed:
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd-2.0/modules/ldap/util_ldap_cache_mgr.c?annotate=1.9
215 util_url_node_t *util_ald_create_caches(util_ldap_state_t *st, const char *url)
216 {
217 jorton 1.7 util_url_node_t curl, *newcurl = NULL;
...
257 minfrin 1.9 else
258 newcurl = NULL;
LDAP segfault fixes and mixup (was: Removed 2.0.51 Win32 Binaries)
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> This patch?
>
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=12817
>
> I'm not as familiar with this cache code, Graham could you look at this?
This is already committed to v2.1.0-dev, and is awaiting votes:
*) Fix a segfault in the LDAP cache purge.
modules/ldap/util_ldap_cache_mgr.c: 1.9
+1: minfrin
0: bnicholes - backporting modules/ldap/util_ldap_cache_mgr.c:
r1.7 below
should eliminate the need to backport the "else" condition
included
in this patch.
It seems though that the comment about the else condition is mixing up
the patches - the above patch fixes util_ald_cache_purge(), while the
v1.7 patch fixes *util_ald_create_caches() and is unrelated to the patch
proposed.
Waiting for votes, then it can be fixed in v2.0.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Removed 2.0.51 Win32 Binaries
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 08:55 AM 9/22/2004, you wrote:
>Perhaps the fix to bug #24801 I recently provided could be included as well...
This patch?
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=12817
I'm not as familiar with this cache code, Graham could you look at this?
In any case, it's committed first to 2.1-dev, then reviewed by three
folks, then committed back to 2.0. Unlikely to hit 2.0.52, but we will
be releasing a 2.0.53 soon. If this is a regression from how 2.0.50
worked, we would redouble our efforts to include it immediately.
With every release, we announce this version "is the best version
available". When a regression of something that worked in the previous
release suddenly breaks a new release, we work very hard to put it
right again so users can adopt the latest version. It's a somewhat
greater weight to get those re-fixed than to fix each and every
outstanding bug.
Participating on the dev list certainly will help get your patches
reviewed more quickly, so thanks for pointing out that patch.
Bill
Re: Removed 2.0.51 Win32 Binaries
Posted by Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>.
Perhaps the fix to bug #24801 I recently provided could be included as
well...
--
Jess Holle
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>The binaries for 2.0.51 have been removed from the www.apache.org/dist/
>site, you can still find them in archive.apache.org/dist/.
>
>However, due to CAN-2004-0811, I would strongly discourage you from
>using these binaries.
>
>I believe it's a disservice to repackage with the patch, since it's
>ambiguous to the user if they have the original, or patched flavor
>installed on a given box. The patch referred to is here:
>
>http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.0.51/CAN-2004-0811.patch
>
>I'm prepared to reroll the Win32 installers this week for 2.0.52 - the
>only question is, what other regressions did 2.0.51 introduce? May as
>well fix all the newly introduced bugs and roll out 2.0.52 in the next
>day or two.
>
>Bill
>
>
24h Clock ticking on 2.0.52 [was:Removed 2.0.51 Win32 Binaries]
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 08:29 AM 9/22/2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>I'm prepared to reroll the Win32 installers this week for 2.0.52 - the
>only question is, what other regressions did 2.0.51 introduce? May as
>well fix all the newly introduced bugs and roll out 2.0.52 in the next
>day or two.
Based on the positive reception, I'm going to lay down a candidate
tag at 1900 GMT tomorrow (about 23 hours from now.)
Some commented they wanted 2.0.51 + exactly this, that, the other
patch. I don't believe that's necessarily right; if we are being
conservative with the code applied to the 2_0 branch, and those apr
people are conservative with their 0_9 branch, there should be no
problem with starting a testing cycle tomorrow.
Please don't treat this as a green light to cram in tons o' patches
by my arbitrary tag time, but if there is a patch safely ready to
be backported, by all means do. I plan to catch everything in the
2_0 branch up to that time, and throw out a tarball for review.
Bill
Re: [users@httpd] Removed 2.0.51 Win32 Binaries
Posted by musicdts <mu...@hotmail.com>.
Hey!
Nice to know you're around!
Thanks for all
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>; <us...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:29 AM
Subject: [users@httpd] Removed 2.0.51 Win32 Binaries
The binaries for 2.0.51 have been removed from the
www.apache.org/dist/
site, you can still find them in archive.apache.org/dist/.
However, due to CAN-2004-0811, I would strongly discourage
you from
using these binaries.
I believe it's a disservice to repackage with the patch,
since it's
ambiguous to the user if they have the original, or patched
flavor
installed on a given box. The patch referred to is here:
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/apply_to_2.0.51/CAN-2004-0811.patch
I'm prepared to reroll the Win32 installers this week for
2.0.52 - the
only question is, what other regressions did 2.0.51
introduce? May as
well fix all the newly introduced bugs and roll out 2.0.52
in the next
day or two.
Bill
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP
Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more
info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest:
users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.767 / Virus Database: 514 - Release Date:
9/21/2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
" from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org