You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org> on 2009/11/09 18:57:42 UTC
intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Hello dev@,
I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th.
I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a
release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases).
I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but
we need to start cleaning those issues out.
Thanks,
Paul
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Nov 9, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
> Hello dev@,
>
> I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th.
>
+1
> I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a
> release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases).
>
+1
> I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but
> we need to start cleaning those issues out.
>
+1
Thx!
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Posted by Lars Eilebrecht <la...@eilebrecht.net>.
Paul Querna wrote:
> I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th.
+1
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht
lars@eilebrecht.net
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Posted by Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org>.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Nov 9, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
>> Paul Querna wrote:
>>
>>> I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th.
>>>
>>> I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a
>>> release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases).
>>>
>>> I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but
>>> we need to start cleaning those issues out.
>
> +1
>
>> Is there a need to bundle APR at all?
>
> Not sure that we do... we could do as Subversion does, and release a
> dependencies tarball with srclib/{apr,apr-util,pcre} from a known release.
>
>
Yes, we already have a separate -deps tarball. I hacked that into the
last alpha release :-)
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Posted by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org>.
On Nov 9, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Paul Querna wrote:
>
>> I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th.
>>
>> I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a
>> release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases).
>>
>> I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues,
>> but
>> we need to start cleaning those issues out.
+1
> Is there a need to bundle APR at all?
Not sure that we do... we could do as Subversion does, and release a
dependencies tarball with srclib/{apr,apr-util,pcre} from a known
release.
S.
> Otherwise +1.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
>
>
--
Sander Temme
sctemme@apache.org
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Posted by Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org>.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Niklas Edmundsson <ni...@acc.umu.se> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> Graham Leggett wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a need to bundle APR at all?
>>
>> Yep, let's draw a line under that. APR is a dependency,
>> not a component.
>
> I assume that there still is a mechanism corresponding to
> --with-included-apr? On a distro with bundled APR version X that httpd
> dislikes (or more commonly, that contains bugs that has been fixed in newer
> releases that aren't considered a security update for the distro) I find it
> very convenient to be able to install httpd without having to jump through
> hoops pointing out which APR devel/runtime-stuff it should use.
>
> So, while APR (and stuff) are indeed dependencies I find
> --build-with-known-good-dependency-stuff very useful.
yes, we will have an httpd-deps-x.y.z.tar.bz2 alongside the normal
release files.
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Posted by Niklas Edmundsson <ni...@acc.umu.se>.
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Nick Kew wrote:
> Graham Leggett wrote:
>
>> Is there a need to bundle APR at all?
>
> Yep, let's draw a line under that. APR is a dependency,
> not a component.
I assume that there still is a mechanism corresponding to
--with-included-apr? On a distro with bundled APR version X that httpd
dislikes (or more commonly, that contains bugs that has been fixed in
newer releases that aren't considered a security update for the
distro) I find it very convenient to be able to install httpd without
having to jump through hoops pointing out which APR
devel/runtime-stuff it should use.
So, while APR (and stuff) are indeed dependencies I find
--build-with-known-good-dependency-stuff very useful.
/Nikke
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}.umu.se | nikke@acc.umu.se
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOS: Tells a computer what to do with itself!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
Graham Leggett wrote:
> Is there a need to bundle APR at all?
Yep, let's draw a line under that. APR is a dependency,
not a component.
> Otherwise +1.
MeToo.
--
Nick Kew
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Posted by Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org>.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:14 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Paul Querna wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
>> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>> Graham Leggett wrote:
>>>> Paul Querna wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th.
>>> +1
>>>
>>>>> I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a
>>>>> release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases).
>>> Major problem; don't do this. You are putting 1.4.x code into a release
>>> which then ends up causing APR 1.4.0 to break its binary ABI rules. That
>>> is just not kosher. Some README or release notes observing that the best
>>> results can be obtained with a checkout and build of the as-yet-unreleased
>>> apr 1.4.x trunk is sufficient.
>>>
>>> If you want to 'test the bundling' - use a released apr please?
>>
>> No released APR works.
>
> It works, but isn't code-complete or bug free; what else is new?
>
APR 1.3.x does not contain APIs used by httpd 2.3.3. Those APIs are
added in APR 1.4.x.
That is the root of the problem. 'does not work' == does not compile.
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Posted by Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org>.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:14 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Paul Querna wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
>> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>> Graham Leggett wrote:
>>>> Paul Querna wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th.
>>> +1
>>>
>>>>> I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a
>>>>> release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases).
>>> Major problem; don't do this. You are putting 1.4.x code into a release
>>> which then ends up causing APR 1.4.0 to break its binary ABI rules. That
>>> is just not kosher. Some README or release notes observing that the best
>>> results can be obtained with a checkout and build of the as-yet-unreleased
>>> apr 1.4.x trunk is sufficient.
>>>
>>> If you want to 'test the bundling' - use a released apr please?
>>
>> No released APR works.
>
> It works, but isn't code-complete or bug free; what else is new?
>
APR 1.3.x does not contain APIs used by httpd 2.3.3. Those APIs are
added in APR 1.4.x.
That is the root of the problem. 'does not work' == does not compile.
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:14 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Paul Querna wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
>> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>> Graham Leggett wrote:
>>>> Paul Querna wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th.
>>> +1
>>>
>>>>> I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a
>>>>> release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases).
>>> Major problem; don't do this. You are putting 1.4.x code into a release
>>> which then ends up causing APR 1.4.0 to break its binary ABI rules. That
>>> is just not kosher. Some README or release notes observing that the best
>>> results can be obtained with a checkout and build of the as-yet-unreleased
>>> apr 1.4.x trunk is sufficient.
>>>
>>> If you want to 'test the bundling' - use a released apr please?
>>
>> No released APR works.
>
> It works, but isn't code-complete or bug free; what else is new?
>
>> Under our own versioning guidelines, we can and will break
>> compatibilty inside 2.3.x, so I don't see the issue created by using a
>> bundled APR.
>>
>>>>> I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but
>>>>> we need to start cleaning those issues out.
>>> :)
>>>
>>>> Is there a need to bundle APR at all?
>>> Agreed +1 if APR is not bundled (this is alpha, after all).
>>>
>>
>> If APR had a 1.4.0 released, it would be viable, but it doesn't.
>
> Which is altogether irrelevant.
>
> http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html
>
> is the contract. By shipping (installing to /usr/lib/ or /usr/local/lib/, etc)
> you have started the clock.
I'm missing something...
As long as this snapshot of APR says 1.4.0-dev, the versioning
requirements are moot. Even the APR project will need to release
something non-GA that hopefully looks a lot like the eventual first
1.4 GA release, but without version constraints until feedback from
outside of the project is received.
> <hat role=chair>
> You also ask the HTTPD project to release "apr 1.4.0-dev", something which the
> APR project hasn't indicated they are ready for.
APR will never release -dev, right? And as far as svn checkouts or
third-party snapshots, there's no promise that one APR 1.4.0-dev looks
like another 1.4.0-dev.
>
> There is nothing technically impossible about that, and you and the +1 vote
> crowd attest that you've reviewed the additions for soundness and all other
> incoming code concerns. And I don't doubt this has happened, knowing the
> overlap between the lists.
>
> But do understand this is a release of APR, as the ASF and applicable law all
> differentiate that from 'work product' (e.g. svn contents).
> </hat>
>
> I just suggest that tagging 1.4.0 at the same time is very little trouble if
> that's what you 'require', and let the results of that bundle alpha swim or
> fall based on the results of a 1.4.0 release vote at apr.
>
>
>
>
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Paul Querna wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> Graham Leggett wrote:
>>> Paul Querna wrote:
>>>
>>>> I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th.
>> +1
>>
>>>> I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a
>>>> release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases).
>> Major problem; don't do this. You are putting 1.4.x code into a release
>> which then ends up causing APR 1.4.0 to break its binary ABI rules. That
>> is just not kosher. Some README or release notes observing that the best
>> results can be obtained with a checkout and build of the as-yet-unreleased
>> apr 1.4.x trunk is sufficient.
>>
>> If you want to 'test the bundling' - use a released apr please?
>
> No released APR works.
It works, but isn't code-complete or bug free; what else is new?
> Under our own versioning guidelines, we can and will break
> compatibilty inside 2.3.x, so I don't see the issue created by using a
> bundled APR.
>
>>>> I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but
>>>> we need to start cleaning those issues out.
>> :)
>>
>>> Is there a need to bundle APR at all?
>> Agreed +1 if APR is not bundled (this is alpha, after all).
>>
>
> If APR had a 1.4.0 released, it would be viable, but it doesn't.
Which is altogether irrelevant.
http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html
is the contract. By shipping (installing to /usr/lib/ or /usr/local/lib/, etc)
you have started the clock.
<hat role=chair>
You also ask the HTTPD project to release "apr 1.4.0-dev", something which the
APR project hasn't indicated they are ready for.
There is nothing technically impossible about that, and you and the +1 vote
crowd attest that you've reviewed the additions for soundness and all other
incoming code concerns. And I don't doubt this has happened, knowing the
overlap between the lists.
But do understand this is a release of APR, as the ASF and applicable law all
differentiate that from 'work product' (e.g. svn contents).
</hat>
I just suggest that tagging 1.4.0 at the same time is very little trouble if
that's what you 'require', and let the results of that bundle alpha swim or
fall based on the results of a 1.4.0 release vote at apr.
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Paul Querna wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> Graham Leggett wrote:
>>> Paul Querna wrote:
>>>
>>>> I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th.
>> +1
>>
>>>> I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a
>>>> release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases).
>> Major problem; don't do this. You are putting 1.4.x code into a release
>> which then ends up causing APR 1.4.0 to break its binary ABI rules. That
>> is just not kosher. Some README or release notes observing that the best
>> results can be obtained with a checkout and build of the as-yet-unreleased
>> apr 1.4.x trunk is sufficient.
>>
>> If you want to 'test the bundling' - use a released apr please?
>
> No released APR works.
It works, but isn't code-complete or bug free; what else is new?
> Under our own versioning guidelines, we can and will break
> compatibilty inside 2.3.x, so I don't see the issue created by using a
> bundled APR.
>
>>>> I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but
>>>> we need to start cleaning those issues out.
>> :)
>>
>>> Is there a need to bundle APR at all?
>> Agreed +1 if APR is not bundled (this is alpha, after all).
>>
>
> If APR had a 1.4.0 released, it would be viable, but it doesn't.
Which is altogether irrelevant.
http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html
is the contract. By shipping (installing to /usr/lib/ or /usr/local/lib/, etc)
you have started the clock.
<hat role=chair>
You also ask the HTTPD project to release "apr 1.4.0-dev", something which the
APR project hasn't indicated they are ready for.
There is nothing technically impossible about that, and you and the +1 vote
crowd attest that you've reviewed the additions for soundness and all other
incoming code concerns. And I don't doubt this has happened, knowing the
overlap between the lists.
But do understand this is a release of APR, as the ASF and applicable law all
differentiate that from 'work product' (e.g. svn contents).
</hat>
I just suggest that tagging 1.4.0 at the same time is very little trouble if
that's what you 'require', and let the results of that bundle alpha swim or
fall based on the results of a 1.4.0 release vote at apr.
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Posted by Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org>.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Graham Leggett wrote:
>> Paul Querna wrote:
>>
>>> I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th.
>
> +1
>
>>> I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a
>>> release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases).
>
> Major problem; don't do this. You are putting 1.4.x code into a release
> which then ends up causing APR 1.4.0 to break its binary ABI rules. That
> is just not kosher. Some README or release notes observing that the best
> results can be obtained with a checkout and build of the as-yet-unreleased
> apr 1.4.x trunk is sufficient.
>
> If you want to 'test the bundling' - use a released apr please?
No released APR works.
Under our own versioning guidelines, we can and will break
compatibilty inside 2.3.x, so I don't see the issue created by using a
bundled APR.
>>> I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but
>>> we need to start cleaning those issues out.
>
> :)
>
>> Is there a need to bundle APR at all?
>
> Agreed +1 if APR is not bundled (this is alpha, after all).
>
If APR had a 1.4.0 released, it would be viable, but it doesn't.
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Graham Leggett wrote:
> Paul Querna wrote:
>
>> I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th.
+1
>> I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a
>> release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases).
Major problem; don't do this. You are putting 1.4.x code into a release
which then ends up causing APR 1.4.0 to break its binary ABI rules. That
is just not kosher. Some README or release notes observing that the best
results can be obtained with a checkout and build of the as-yet-unreleased
apr 1.4.x trunk is sufficient.
If you want to 'test the bundling' - use a released apr please?
>> I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but
>> we need to start cleaning those issues out.
:)
> Is there a need to bundle APR at all?
Agreed +1 if APR is not bundled (this is alpha, after all).
Re: intend to roll 2.3 alpha on Wednesday
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Paul Querna wrote:
> I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th.
>
> I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a
> release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases).
>
> I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but
> we need to start cleaning those issues out.
Is there a need to bundle APR at all?
Otherwise +1.
Regards,
Graham
--