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 2008/01/02 17:35:03 UTC
Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Now that I am really back, I'd like to reboot the intent to
T&R all three. 2.2 has a current show-stopper however, with a veto
upon the patch by Nick.
Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Yes, I saw that, but I wanted to dig deeper and read his Email
> on why he didn't like it...
Well, he wanted a patch for a narrowly defined mod_proxy_ftp-specific
directive context, but offered a patch to apply a server_rec, while
Rudiger's patch is against the dir_rec which is much more appropriate.
AIUI he questioned the need to change the general mod_proxy directive
configuration structures for a mod_proxy_ftp specific directive. That
said, I don't see the issue, think it could be useful to other proxy
intermediaries, so let's just go with Rudiger's.
Bill
Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 01/02/2008 07:04 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jan 2, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:56:23 -0500
>> Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I saw that, but I wanted to dig deeper and read his Email
>>> on why he didn't like it... Until that's resolved, the SS
>>> still exists (though with a caveat)
>>
>> In summary, I don't think that patch should spill outside mod_proxy_ftp.
>> Putting it on the mod_proxy config, and hence involving changes to
>> mod_proxy.h API and ap_mmn, seems like superfluous complexity/bloat.
>> Especially when most mod_proxy users won't be requiring mod_proxy_ftp.
>>
>> But that's not a veto, just a -0.
>>
>
> And a valid point...
So far we have not put any configuration directives into mod_proxy_* even
if they are specifc to a mod_proxy_* module (AllowCONNECT comes to mind).
I do not say that this is correct, but I created my patch based on this and
this seems to me a broader discussion that IMHO should not prevent us from releasing.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jan 2, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:56:23 -0500
> Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I saw that, but I wanted to dig deeper and read his Email
>> on why he didn't like it... Until that's resolved, the SS
>> still exists (though with a caveat)
>
> In summary, I don't think that patch should spill outside
> mod_proxy_ftp.
> Putting it on the mod_proxy config, and hence involving changes to
> mod_proxy.h API and ap_mmn, seems like superfluous complexity/bloat.
> Especially when most mod_proxy users won't be requiring mod_proxy_ftp.
>
> But that's not a veto, just a -0.
>
And a valid point...
Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:56:23 -0500
Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> Yes, I saw that, but I wanted to dig deeper and read his Email
> on why he didn't like it... Until that's resolved, the SS
> still exists (though with a caveat)
In summary, I don't think that patch should spill outside mod_proxy_ftp.
Putting it on the mod_proxy config, and hence involving changes to
mod_proxy.h API and ap_mmn, seems like superfluous complexity/bloat.
Especially when most mod_proxy users won't be requiring mod_proxy_ftp.
But that's not a veto, just a -0.
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/
Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jan 2, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> On 01/02/2008 05:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Now that I am really back, I'd like to reboot the intent to
>> T&R all three. 2.2 has a current show-stopper however, with a veto
>> upon the patch by Nick.
>
> You can solve this veto. Just vote for the vetoed patch plus for
>
> * mod_proxy_ftp: Introduce the ProxyFtpDirCharset directive,
> allowing
> the administrator to identify a default, or specific servers or
> paths
> which list their contents in other-than ISO-8859-1 charset
> (e.g. utf-8).
> [Ruediger Pluem]
>
> This makes Nick's veto void.
>
Yes, I saw that, but I wanted to dig deeper and read his Email
on why he didn't like it... Until that's resolved, the SS
still exists (though with a caveat)
Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 01/02/2008 05:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Now that I am really back, I'd like to reboot the intent to
> T&R all three. 2.2 has a current show-stopper however, with a veto
> upon the patch by Nick.
You can solve this veto. Just vote for the vetoed patch plus for
* mod_proxy_ftp: Introduce the ProxyFtpDirCharset directive, allowing
the administrator to identify a default, or specific servers or paths
which list their contents in other-than ISO-8859-1 charset (e.g. utf-8).
[Ruediger Pluem]
This makes Nick's veto void.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Rainer Jung schrieb:
> been last updated on December 18 this year, although it goes back to
this -> last (it's already next year) :)
Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Ruediger Pluem schrieb:
>
> On 01/03/2008 12:21 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>> But there was a problem with the _default_ setting for a virtual host. I am not sure
>> so far if this is my config or if there is something else going wrong on Solaris 10.
>> I will investigate tomorrow.
>
> This is a bug in Solaris 10. See also
>
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/networking-discuss/2007-September/017120.html
> http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=4944187
>
> There might be even a patch for it, but I do not have sunsolve credentials at hand:
>
> http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-1-4944187-1
Not there's no other info in this patch description document and
sunsolve doesn't find a patch for it even with credentials. The bug has
been last updated on December 18 this year, although it goes back to
2003. It looks like they are now producing a patch.
The other links above already include the Sun suggested workarounds,
either disable nscd (bad) or include DNS in /etc/nsswitch.conf.
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
Gutes Neues!
Rainer
Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 01/03/2008 12:21 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> But there was a problem with the _default_ setting for a virtual host. I am not sure
> so far if this is my config or if there is something else going wrong on Solaris 10.
> I will investigate tomorrow.
This is a bug in Solaris 10. See also
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/networking-discuss/2007-September/017120.html
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=4944187
There might be even a patch for it, but I do not have sunsolve credentials at hand:
http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-1-4944187-1
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 01/02/2008 08:57 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> FWIW, STATUS on the 2.x branches is cleaned up in anticipation
> of the T&R (there are no open patches for 1.3, afaik).
>
> If you haven't already, I encourage everyone to 'svn up' and
> at least run some prelim tests before I do the actual T&R.
> I've been working on getting my old Blade (Sol8) up and
> running (something's happened to it since I last booted
> it up) and test there (as well as on OS X and SUSE) before
> I tag. So it would be useful to get some prelim feedback that
> we are ready for a tag if others can test.
>
>
SuSE 10.2 32 Bit:
All litmus tests passed for WebDAV.
RedHat AS4 64 Bit:
2.0.x:
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t/ssl/pr43738.t 4 2 50.00% 2 4
(1 subtest UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 16 tests and 25 subtests skipped.
Failed 1/80 test scripts, 98.75% okay. 2/2790 subtests failed, 99.93% okay.
No regression.
2.2.x:
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t/ssl/pr43738.t 4 2 50.00% 2 4
9 tests and 18 subtests skipped.
Failed 1/80 test scripts, 98.75% okay. 2/2807 subtests failed, 99.93% okay.
No regression.
Solaris 9:
2.2.x:
My perl test kit is incomplete, but as far as I can tell no regressions could be found.
Solaris 10:
2.2.x:
My perl test kit is incomplete, but as far as I can tell no regressions could be found.
But there was a problem with the _default_ setting for a virtual host. I am not sure
so far if this is my config or if there is something else going wrong on Solaris 10.
I will investigate tomorrow.
My Solaris boxes are to0 slow to get test results for both 2.0.x and
2.2.x in time, but given the fact that the changes for 2.0.x are small
compared to 2.2.x I only tested 2.2.x.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> First results for SuSE 10.2:
>
> 2.2.x:
>
> Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> t/ssl/pr43738.t 4 2 50.00% 2 4
> 7 tests and 18 subtests skipped.
> Failed 1/80 test scripts, 98.75% okay. 2/2841 subtests failed, 99.93% okay.
>
> But this is no regression.
Agreed, but the patch is out there awaiting one more review (and Joe who
wrote the patch hasn't chimed in, while I and Rudiger have). So it could
be considered if one more reviews it.
(I had cast this yesterday, but didn't commit it all in one go, because
it would have made the status commit more confusing. Then I just forgot
to add it.)
Bill
Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 01/02/2008 08:57 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> FWIW, STATUS on the 2.x branches is cleaned up in anticipation
> of the T&R (there are no open patches for 1.3, afaik).
FWIW, the reason that caused Nick to veto on 2.2.x is still there
on 2.0.x, so I guess it would be good if you could give it the missing
vote and backport it.
>
> If you haven't already, I encourage everyone to 'svn up' and
> at least run some prelim tests before I do the actual T&R.
> I've been working on getting my old Blade (Sol8) up and
> running (something's happened to it since I last booted
> it up) and test there (as well as on OS X and SUSE) before
> I tag. So it would be useful to get some prelim feedback that
> we are ready for a tag if others can test.
>
First results for SuSE 10.2:
2.2.x:
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t/ssl/pr43738.t 4 2 50.00% 2 4
7 tests and 18 subtests skipped.
Failed 1/80 test scripts, 98.75% okay. 2/2841 subtests failed, 99.93% okay.
But this is no regression.
2.0.x
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t/ssl/pr43738.t 4 2 50.00% 2 4
(1 subtest UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 15 tests and 25 subtests skipped.
Failed 1/80 test scripts, 98.75% okay. 2/2816 subtests failed, 99.93% okay.
But this is no regression.
I try to get some more results in the next hour so stay tuned.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
FWIW, STATUS on the 2.x branches is cleaned up in anticipation
of the T&R (there are no open patches for 1.3, afaik).
If you haven't already, I encourage everyone to 'svn up' and
at least run some prelim tests before I do the actual T&R.
I've been working on getting my old Blade (Sol8) up and
running (something's happened to it since I last booted
it up) and test there (as well as on OS X and SUSE) before
I tag. So it would be useful to get some prelim feedback that
we are ready for a tag if others can test.
Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 01/02/2008 05:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Now that I am really back, I'd like to reboot the intent to
> T&R all three. 2.2 has a current show-stopper however, with a veto
> upon the patch by Nick.
BTW: We have the same situation for 2.0.x. Only Nick did not put his
veto in the STATUS file in this case.
Regards
Rüdiger