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 2007/01/06 08:41:09 UTC
[VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon resync)
contain the following tarballs for approval
httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
+/-1
[ ] Release httpd 2.2.4
Let the voting begin, and kick off 2.2.5 efforts. I understand Jim is still
interested in RM'ing 2.2.5 later this month.
Bill
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On 6 Jan 2007, at 07:41, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon
> resync)
> contain the following tarballs for approval
>
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
>
> +/-1
> [ ] Release httpd 2.2.4
>
> Let the voting begin, and kick off 2.2.5 efforts. I understand Jim
> is still
> interested in RM'ing 2.2.5 later this month.
>
> Bill
+1 linux
-0 darwin: segfaults when mod_usertrack is loaded.
That's no change on before, but ISTR it's a common problem for
mac users, and should be documented. And it would be good if
mod_usertrack declined to build on darwin, so this doesn't hit
users who have no idea of tracking down a crash.
--
Nick Kew
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 01/07/2007 08:16 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>>-0 on SuSE Linux 10.1 x86_64, gcc 4.1.0
>>
>>Due to the apr-util bug 41308 (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41308) the 64 bit
>>build does not work if a system wide 32 bit expat library is present.
>
>
> Can you clarify - if you specific --with-builtin-expat does the issue persist?
No, if you use --with-expat=builtin it does work, which is quite clear as the delivered library
source code is then compiled 64 bit.
I made further comments inside the PR. If you remove /usr/lib/libexpat.la
(no need to remove the .so files!) then everything works fine. I think what is missing in
apr-util's detection function is a crosscheck if the libexpat found is really linkable with the
current set of CFLAGS.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> -0 on SuSE Linux 10.1 x86_64, gcc 4.1.0
>
> Due to the apr-util bug 41308 (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41308) the 64 bit
> build does not work if a system wide 32 bit expat library is present.
Can you clarify - if you specific --with-builtin-expat does the issue persist?
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 01/06/2007 08:41 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon resync)
> contain the following tarballs for approval
>
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
.asc / .md5 OK
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
.asc / .md5 OK
+1 on Solaris 8 / 9, gcc 3.3.2
The following warnings showed up:
network_io/unix/sendrecv.c: In function `apr_socket_sendfile':
network_io/unix/sendrecv.c:875: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size
network_io/unix/sendrecv.c:899: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size
threadproc/unix/thread.c: In function `apr_thread_once_init':
threadproc/unix/thread.c:292: warning: missing braces around initializer
threadproc/unix/thread.c:292: warning: (near initialization for `once_init.__pthread_once_pad')
mod_dbd.c: In function `dbd_param':
mod_dbd.c:112: warning: subscript has type `char'
mod_dbd.c:117: warning: subscript has type `char'
mod_dbd.c:122: warning: subscript has type `char'
mod_dbd.c:127: warning: subscript has type `char'
mod_log_forensic.c: In function `log_before':
mod_log_forensic.c:199: warning: unsigned int format, pid_t arg (arg 3)
mod_proxy_balancer.c: In function `get_cookie_param':
mod_proxy_balancer.c:144: warning: subscript has type `char'
mod_proxy_balancer.c:147: warning: subscript has type `char'
-0 on SuSE Linux 10.1 x86_64, gcc 4.1.0
Due to the apr-util bug 41308 (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41308) the 64 bit
build does not work if a system wide 32 bit expat library is present.
The following warnings showed up:
trings/apr_snprintf.c: In function 'conv_os_thread_t':
strings/apr_snprintf.c:511: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
strings/apr_snprintf.c: In function 'conv_os_thread_t_hex':
strings/apr_snprintf.c:681: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
buckets/apr_brigade.c: In function 'apr_brigade_to_iovec':
buckets/apr_brigade.c:337: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
fdqueue.c: In function 'queue_info_cleanup':
fdqueue.c:46: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
fdqueue.c: In function 'ap_queue_info_set_idle':
fdqueue.c:99: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
fdqueue.c: In function 'ap_queue_info_wait_for_idler':
fdqueue.c:193: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
proxy_util.c: In function 'ap_proxy_initialize_worker':
proxy_util.c:1723: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
mod_proxy_ajp.c: In function 'ap_proxy_ajp_request':
mod_proxy_ajp.c:229: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
mod_proxy_ajp.c:392: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
ssl_engine_init.c: In function 'ssl_init_FindCAList':
ssl_engine_init.c:1187: warning: value computed is not used
mod_cgid.c: In function 'cgid_start':
mod_cgid.c:617: warning: 'env' may be used uninitialized in this function
mod_cgid.c:616: warning: 'argv0' may be used uninitialized in this function
In total I am +1 on releasing.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Brad Nicholes <BN...@novell.com>.
>>> On 1/6/2007 at 12:41 AM, in message <45...@rowe-clan.net>, "William
A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon resync)
> contain the following tarballs for approval
>
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
>
> +/-1
> [ ] Release httpd 2.2.4
>
> Let the voting begin, and kick off 2.2.5 efforts. I understand Jim is still
> interested in RM'ing 2.2.5 later this month.
>
> Bil
+1 NetWare
Brad
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <ro...@gmail.com>.
+1, all sigs verified on Darwin Kernel Version 8.8.0 (10.4.8) powerpc
powerpc-apple-darwin8-gcc-4.0.1 (GCC) 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc.
build 5367)
All tests successful, 23 tests and 14 subtests skipped.
Files=65, Tests=2078, 100 wallclock secs (48.33 cusr + 13.37 csys =
61.70 CPU)
....Roy
Re: [VOTE] [CORRECTIONS] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:51:37PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > On 1/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> The directories themselves, nevermind the .mak files within them, should
> >> have never existed in a source package.
> >
> > So, what Makefile.win does hack-msvc8-httpd-2.2.4.patch apply to?
>
> Justin, this is giving me a headache, follow the entire thread next time :)
I *did* follow the entire thread, but it didn't make any sense.
> "The directories" == srclib/zlib and srclib/openssl which were in the very
> first roll of httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip, containing various specific .mak
> files that were never to be in the package. That was change 1/2 that I
> documented at the start of the [CORRECTIONS] thread.
>
> Those are now gone from the second and third iterations.
>
> About Makefile.win, that was the patched file and change 2/2 from this
> [CORRECTIONS] thread. The patch is removed from the third iteration per
> your comments on an involatile tag & roll.
>
> Clear now?
Yes, thanks for summarizing this into one clear easy-to-read recap.
Now, my head doesn't hurt as much. =) -- justin
Re: [VOTE] [CORRECTIONS] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 1/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>
>> The directories themselves, nevermind the .mak files within them, should
>> have never existed in a source package.
>
> So, what Makefile.win does hack-msvc8-httpd-2.2.4.patch apply to?
Justin, this is giving me a headache, follow the entire thread next time :)
"The directories" == srclib/zlib and srclib/openssl which were in the very
first roll of httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip, containing various specific .mak
files that were never to be in the package. That was change 1/2 that I
documented at the start of the [CORRECTIONS] thread.
Those are now gone from the second and third iterations.
About Makefile.win, that was the patched file and change 2/2 from this
[CORRECTIONS] thread. The patch is removed from the third iteration per
your comments on an involatile tag & roll.
Clear now?
Re: [VOTE] [CORRECTIONS] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 1/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> More to the point, it was their makefile (patched as needed, but that's
> not the point) ... but not the rest of their packages. We don't ship
> zlib/openssl sources in the package. In my build structure, they are
> just junctions. I was being 'clever' zipping up all the *.mak/*.dep files
> into a package - threw it on my linux export of the packages and unpacked
> it for the final result. My bad I forgot to unlink those junctions first.
>
> The directories themselves, nevermind the .mak files within them, should
> have never existed in a source package.
So, what Makefile.win does hack-msvc8-httpd-2.2.4.patch apply to?
That looks like it has some httpd-specific stuff, so I'm not clear how
that is a third-party Makefile. Or, am I misunderstanding something
about the patch you posted? Or was the diff between the Windows zip
files something more substantial than what is in the .patch file? --
justin
Re: [VOTE] [CORRECTIONS] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 1/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> Well, correcting the additional cruft under srclib/zlib and
>> srclib/openssl,
>> which are not part of the distribution, is a no brainer.
>
> AIUI, it changes our Makefile not theirs.
More to the point, it was their makefile (patched as needed, but that's
not the point) ... but not the rest of their packages. We don't ship
zlib/openssl sources in the package. In my build structure, they are
just junctions. I was being 'clever' zipping up all the *.mak/*.dep files
into a package - threw it on my linux export of the packages and unpacked
it for the final result. My bad I forgot to unlink those junctions first.
The directories themselves, nevermind the .mak files within them, should
have never existed in a source package.
>> So I presume you object to the six line patch I attached? As I begged,
>> if anyone objects, I'll revert and repost.
>>
>> No cause for 2.2.5.
>
> I would post that under the patches/ directory and if you want, note
> it in the 2.2.4 announcement. But, I largely view the releases as
> sacrosanct once posted for review and voting. -- justin
No hassle. Updated, fresh package in place with the patch reverted (may
take a few to get from staging to live.)
Re: [VOTE] [CORRECTIONS] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 1/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Well, correcting the additional cruft under srclib/zlib and srclib/openssl,
> which are not part of the distribution, is a no brainer.
AIUI, it changes our Makefile not theirs.
> So I presume you object to the six line patch I attached? As I begged,
> if anyone objects, I'll revert and repost.
>
> No cause for 2.2.5.
I would post that under the patches/ directory and if you want, note
it in the 2.2.4 announcement. But, I largely view the releases as
sacrosanct once posted for review and voting. -- justin
Re: [VOTE] [CORRECTIONS] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> I'm very very much against changing release artifacts once they have
> been produced. Those changes mandate 2.2.5, IMO. -- justin
Well, correcting the additional cruft under srclib/zlib and srclib/openssl,
which are not part of the distribution, is a no brainer.
So I presume you object to the six line patch I attached? As I begged,
if anyone objects, I'll revert and repost.
No cause for 2.2.5.
Re: [VOTE] [CORRECTIONS] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 1/9/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >
> > Um, 'updated' how? Did you mean 'uploaded'? -- justin
>
> Updated per the other comments in the same email you elided.
Your email did not make it clear at all what specifically changed.
I'm very very much against changing release artifacts once they have
been produced. Those changes mandate 2.2.5, IMO. -- justin
Re: [VOTE] [CORRECTIONS] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> Um, 'updated' how? Did you mean 'uploaded'? -- justin
Updated per the other comments in the same email you elided.
Re: [VOTE] [CORRECTIONS] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 12:09:17AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Before I go any further, httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip is updated here at 6am UT
> and will take an hour to move across to the live site
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> while the .tar files remain unchanged. Feedback to several issues inline...
Um, 'updated' how? Did you mean 'uploaded'? -- justin
Re: [VOTE] [CORRECTIONS] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org>.
On Jan 8, 2007, at 10:09 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> The RC has been running on people.apache.org as of 1:46PM today.
>
> Rekicked a 48 hour release clock from that mark. Afternoon the of the
> 9th I'll call the vote, it would be good to see a two-day update from
> yourself, Joe or another infra-team member.
No crashes observed.
S.
--
sctemme@apache.org http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
Re: [VOTE] [CORRECTIONS] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Before I go any further, httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip is updated here at 6am UT
and will take an hour to move across to the live site
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
while the .tar files remain unchanged. Feedback to several issues inline...
Sander Temme wrote on 01/07/07:
>
> The RC has been running on people.apache.org as of 1:46PM today.
Rekicked a 48 hour release clock from that mark. Afternoon the of the
9th I'll call the vote, it would be good to see a two-day update from
yourself, Joe or another infra-team member.
Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> Adding:
> $(MAKE) $(MAKEOPT) -f Makefile.win SHORT=$(SHORT) LONG=$(LONG) \
> _copybin src_exe=exe.manifest src_dll=dll.manifest src_so=so.manifest
> quiet="-" \
> inst_exe="$(INSTDIR)\bin" \
> inst_dll="$(INSTDIR)\bin" \
> inst_so="$(INSTDIR)\modules"
> to the makefile automates the copy of the manifest files and resolves
> the problem.
FOR THIS VERSION ONLY, I will hack in this method, it's fast, efficient,
and quiet provided we first
if EXIST $(LONG)\httpd.exe.manifest \
before that command. It's not elegant, but folks already know my opinion
of VC8, with its deprecated POSIX(?!?) and .manifest crapola for clib. And
it gets folks building with no further changes.
Diff attached. I will commit and svn cp Makefile.win to tags/2.2.4/, if devs
feel the historical documentation is worthwhile. Patching trunk/ to truly
embed .manifest files where/when appropriate, instead. If folks object, state
now before this goes live in 30 hours. It really doesn't seem worthwhile to
toss 2.2.4 on this account for one platform.
Thank you Gustavo for the straight-line solution to this issue for VC8 users.
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
> This is a wild guess but !IF EXIST("srclib\zlib")
> in the win-src packaged the zlib and openssl folders exist without the
> files being in there. I guess this broke it.
Yes - I tried an alternate method to package the .zip's - moving the .mak
and .dep files from win to linux. I hadn't unhooked my symbolic junctions
and yes, there were .mak files hiding in srclib/zlib and srclib/openssl.
Good catch by Issac Goldstand.
My bad, fixed package inc with srclib/zlib/, srclib/openssl removed, and
the attached patch to Makefile.win applied to 'get VC8 users by' for now.
Bill
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org>.
On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:41 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Let the voting begin, and kick off 2.2.5 efforts. I understand Jim
> is still
> interested in RM'ing 2.2.5 later this month.
The RC has been running on people.apache.org as of 1:46PM today.
http://people.apache.org/server-status
Nothing untoward in the error log; I'll keep an eye on it.
S.
--
sctemme@apache.org http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon resync)
> contain the following tarballs for approval
>
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
I counted 7+1, 0-1. Thanks everyone.
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Tom Donovan wrote:
>
> I'd vote to fix it in 2.2.4 rather than deal with the noise - but
> personally I'm happy either way since I now know the workaround.
We won't - 2.2.4 is done.
We could scuttle 2.2.4, but given the overwhelming improvements I'm
really loathe to do that. Let 2.2.4 live, and pick up 2.2.5 soon.
We can't help it when MS doesn't follow their own documented API /shrug
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Tom Donovan <do...@bellatlantic.net>.
re: "start an incident at Microsoft"
I'll try - but since Win2000 is in what MS calls "Extended support phase", only security bugs are
accepted. I'll describe it as creatively as I can...
re: "I don't see this as a showstopper"
True. The Win32DisableAcceptEx directive certainly works.
There could be a large number of production sites running Win2k, so there is apt to be a lot of buzz
and forum posts about "you need to add this new directive for 2.2.4".
I'd vote to fix it in 2.2.4 rather than deal with the noise - but personally I'm happy either way
since I now know the workaround.
Glad I could contribute to an Apache release.
-tom-
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> The Win32DisableAcceptEx directive also works to correct the problem
>> (without the patch).
>
> That's your bug - AcceptEx inhibits proper behavior of getpeername(),
> if you would like to start an incident at Microsoft with respect to your
> 2000 machine's IP stack and drivers.
>
>> Applying win32sock_is_known.patch corrects the problem for win2000.
>
> Is our bug, fixing on all apr applicable branches today, thanks for all
> of your detailed analysis and dedicated testing!
>
> I don't see this as a showstopper, as there is a user-configurable
> workaround (Win32DisableAcceptEx) if the client in server-status, and
> the access.log/error.log entries displays as 0.0.0.0.
>
> Bill
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Tom Donovan wrote:
> re: the Windows 2000 0.0.0.0 IP address problem
>
> Bill,
>
> Both solutions work.
>
> The Win32DisableAcceptEx directive also works to correct the problem
> (without the patch).
That's your bug - AcceptEx inhibits proper behavior of getpeername(),
if you would like to start an incident at Microsoft with respect to your
2000 machine's IP stack and drivers.
> Applying win32sock_is_known.patch corrects the problem for win2000.
Is our bug, fixing on all apr applicable branches today, thanks for all
of your detailed analysis and dedicated testing!
I don't see this as a showstopper, as there is a user-configurable
workaround (Win32DisableAcceptEx) if the client in server-status, and
the access.log/error.log entries displays as 0.0.0.0.
Bill
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Tom Donovan <do...@bellatlantic.net>.
re: the Windows 2000 0.0.0.0 IP address problem
Bill,
Both solutions work.
Applying win32sock_is_known.patch corrects the problem for win2000.
The Win32DisableAcceptEx directive also works to correct the problem (without the patch).
-tom-
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> It's actually apr_os_sock_make() and although it set unknown=1 where there
> was no remote addr, it assumed unknown from alloc_socket() was 0.
>
> Try the attached patch please?
>
> Bill
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Tom, speculating here without a 2000 box close - would you try to
> DisableWin32AcceptEx please? Perhaps the flaw actually resides in how
> AcceptEx and GetAcceptExSockaddrs, and how they interact with the socket?
>
> Bill
>
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Tom Donovan wrote:
>
> I see that apr_os_sock_put() set remote_addr_unknown=1 in earlier APR
> versions too.
It's actually apr_os_sock_make() and although it set unknown=1 where there
was no remote addr, it assumed unknown from alloc_socket() was 0.
Try the attached patch please?
Bill
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Tom Donovan wrote:
>
> Perhaps it would be simpler to presume that remote_addr *is* always
> known on Windows, and make sure all the Windows APR socket functions
> live up to this rule.
Simpler? Sure, if apr is only for httpd when AcceptEx() is in use :-/
Of course, that's not true, the implementation is bogus, we need to toggle
this as !remote_addr_unknown in apr_os_sock_put *****when appropriate*****.
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Tom Donovan wrote:
>
> I see that apr_os_sock_put() set remote_addr_unknown=1 in earlier APR
> versions too.
It's actually apr_os_sock_make() and although it set unknown=1 where there
was no remote addr, it assumed unknown from alloc_socket() was 0.
Try the attached patch please?
Bill
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Tom Donovan <do...@bellatlantic.net>.
re: the Windows 2000 0.0.0.0 IP address problem
A quick look through win32/sockets.c shows code to fill in remote_addr after accept() and connect(),
as well as after acceptEx(). This led me to believe that "Windows has the peer name".
Ditto for the win9x_*() functions in Apache server/mpm/winnt/child.c. Alas, I don't have any win9x
systems to check that this works OK.
I see that apr_os_sock_put() set remote_addr_unknown=1 in earlier APR versions too.
Apache on Windows only seems to use apr_os_sock_put() to pass listen sockets between parent & child
in mpm_winnt.c, so perhaps that's why the problem was never noticed.
Perhaps it would be simpler to presume that remote_addr *is* always known on Windows, and make sure
all the Windows APR socket functions live up to this rule.
-tom-
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Tom, thanks for the analysis and bug report - your trace follows mine but
> the getpeername was news to me.
>
> W.R.T. httpd you made the assumption "Windows has the peer name" - which
> is true with AcceptEx but won't be true in any other context. This is
> the exception not the rule.
>
> So a couple thoughts; Win32 apr_os_socket_put is going to need to learn
> how to set the local/remote addresses as 'identified' for purposes of
> working within httpd. And the getpeername bug needs a workaround/hack.
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Tom, thanks for the analysis and bug report - your trace follows mine but
the getpeername was news to me.
W.R.T. httpd you made the assumption "Windows has the peer name" - which
is true with AcceptEx but won't be true in any other context. This is
the exception not the rule.
So a couple thoughts; Win32 apr_os_socket_put is going to need to learn
how to set the local/remote addresses as 'identified' for purposes of
working within httpd. And the getpeername bug needs a workaround/hack.
All in all - very good catch.
Bill
Tom Donovan wrote:
> I have had some difficulties running 2.2.4 RC on Windows 2000.
>
> The remote IP is always seen as 0.0.0.0.
> Here are a few lines from my logs\access.log:
>
> 0.0.0.0 - - [07/Jan/2007:11:22:59 -0500] "GET /server-status HTTP/1.1"
> 403 215
> 0.0.0.0 - - [07/Jan/2007:11:23:36 -0500] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 20417
>
> I built with Microsoft Visual C++ 2005, and again with Visual C++ 6.0.
> Either set (VC8 or VC6) of binaries runs OK on Windows 2003 and also on
> Windows XP.
> The problem only occurs when running 2.2.4 on Win2k.
>
> Apache 2.2.3 built with the same compilers runs OK on all three platforms.
>
> Has anyone else run 2.2.4 on Windows 2000 yet?
>
> -tom-
>
>
>> On 1/6/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> .
>
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Tom, speculating here without a 2000 box close - would you try to
DisableWin32AcceptEx please? Perhaps the flaw actually resides in how
AcceptEx and GetAcceptExSockaddrs, and how they interact with the socket?
Bill
Tom Donovan wrote:
> I have had some difficulties running 2.2.4 RC on Windows 2000.
>
> The remote IP is always seen as 0.0.0.0.
> Here are a few lines from my logs\access.log:
>
> 0.0.0.0 - - [07/Jan/2007:11:22:59 -0500] "GET /server-status HTTP/1.1"
> 403 215
> 0.0.0.0 - - [07/Jan/2007:11:23:36 -0500] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 20417
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Tom Donovan <do...@bellatlantic.net>.
I have had some difficulties running 2.2.4 RC on Windows 2000.
The remote IP is always seen as 0.0.0.0.
Here are a few lines from my logs\access.log:
0.0.0.0 - - [07/Jan/2007:11:22:59 -0500] "GET /server-status HTTP/1.1" 403 215
0.0.0.0 - - [07/Jan/2007:11:23:36 -0500] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 20417
I built with Microsoft Visual C++ 2005, and again with Visual C++ 6.0.
Either set (VC8 or VC6) of binaries runs OK on Windows 2003 and also on Windows XP.
The problem only occurs when running 2.2.4 on Win2k.
Apache 2.2.3 built with the same compilers runs OK on all three platforms.
Has anyone else run 2.2.4 on Windows 2000 yet?
-tom-
> On 1/6/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On 1/6/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
[+1] Release httpd 2.2.4
tested with worker MPM on RedHat 4/ia32 and Solaris 10/SPARC32
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Gustavo Lopes <"m...@geleia.net>.
> where exactly did you add this in the Makefile?
> After some searching it does seem that the errors I' mgetting are related
> to
> missing or wrong manifest files.
Line 608 of /Makefile.win.
Then prepare the environment and build with "nmake -f Makefile.win PORT=80
INSTDIR="x:\path" installr"
You can always manually copy the manifest files.
--
Gustavo Lopes
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
where exactly did you add this in the Makefile?
After some searching it does seem that the errors I' mgetting are related to
missing or wrong manifest files.
On 1/6/07, Gustavo Lopes <"m...@geleia.net> wrote:
>
> No problems compiling (with openssl0.9.8d and zlib1.2.3) with visual
> studio
> 2005 from the command line, except for the usual trouble with the manifest
> files.
> Adding:
> $(MAKE) $(MAKEOPT) -f Makefile.win SHORT=$(SHORT) LONG=$(LONG) \
> _copybin src_exe=exe.manifest src_dll=dll.manifest src_so=so.manifest
> quiet="-" \
> inst_exe="$(INSTDIR)\bin" \
> inst_dll="$(INSTDIR)\bin" \
> inst_so="$(INSTDIR)\modules"
> to the makefile automates the copy of the manifest files and resolves the
> problem. Maybe it's worth adding this or something to run mt.exe and embed
> the manifests.
>
> --
> Gustavo Lopes
>
>
--
~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com>.
I only building with the IDE, it embeds the manifests auto.
For a command-line build I should advise:
Do not clutter the makefiles with specific VC2005 stuff,
but use a .bat file to embed the manifests, so no external manifest files:
manifestVC2005.bat
mt -manifest ab.exe.manifest -outputresource:ab.exe;1
mt -manifest httpd.exe.manifest -outputresource:httpd.exe;1
mt -manifest rotatelogs.exe.manifest -outputresource:rotatelogs.exe;1
...
...
mt -manifest mod_actions.so.manifest -outputresource:mod_actions.so;1
mt -manifest mod_alias.so.manifest -outputresource:mod_alias.so;1
...
...
etc. etc.
Steffen
----- Original Message -----
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 20:21
Subject: Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Gustavo Lopes wrote:
>>> No problems compiling (with openssl0.9.8d and zlib1.2.3) with visual
>>> studio 2005 from the command line, except for the usual trouble with the
>>> manifest files.
>>
>> What trouble? All the libraries/exe's have a post build step that does
>> this.
>>
>> Going back to a virgin unpack of the -src.zip - can you point out the
>> exact
>> issue you encountered?
>
> Nevermind - I see we apparently haven't finished backporting the .manifest
> work from SVN trunk/ (the 2.3 development branch).
>
> I *really* like your hack Gustavo :)
>
> Steffan - given that you aren't having issues either, which hack did you
> use
> for the .manifest data?
>
> Bill
>
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Gustavo Lopes wrote:
>> No problems compiling (with openssl0.9.8d and zlib1.2.3) with visual
>> studio 2005 from the command line, except for the usual trouble with the
>> manifest files.
>
> What trouble? All the libraries/exe's have a post build step that does this.
>
> Going back to a virgin unpack of the -src.zip - can you point out the exact
> issue you encountered?
Nevermind - I see we apparently haven't finished backporting the .manifest
work from SVN trunk/ (the 2.3 development branch).
I *really* like your hack Gustavo :)
Steffan - given that you aren't having issues either, which hack did you use
for the .manifest data?
Bill
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> No problems compiling (with openssl0.9.8d and zlib1.2.3) with visual
> studio 2005 from the command line, except for the usual trouble with the
> manifest files.
What trouble? All the libraries/exe's have a post build step that does this.
Going back to a virgin unpack of the -src.zip - can you point out the exact
issue you encountered?
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
I'll give it another whack later today but from IDE this time.
I'll keep you posted
On 1/6/07, Gustavo Lopes <"m...@geleia.net> wrote:
>
> No problems compiling (with openssl0.9.8d and zlib1.2.3) with visual
> studio
> 2005 from the command line, except for the usual trouble with the manifest
> files.
> Adding:
> $(MAKE) $(MAKEOPT) -f Makefile.win SHORT=$(SHORT) LONG=$(LONG) \
> _copybin src_exe=exe.manifest src_dll=dll.manifest src_so=so.manifest
> quiet="-" \
> inst_exe="$(INSTDIR)\bin" \
> inst_dll="$(INSTDIR)\bin" \
> inst_so="$(INSTDIR)\modules"
> to the makefile automates the copy of the manifest files and resolves the
> problem. Maybe it's worth adding this or something to run mt.exe and embed
> the manifests.
>
> --
> Gustavo Lopes
>
>
--
~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Gustavo Lopes <"m...@geleia.net>.
No problems compiling (with openssl0.9.8d and zlib1.2.3) with visual studio
2005 from the command line, except for the usual trouble with the manifest
files.
Adding:
$(MAKE) $(MAKEOPT) -f Makefile.win SHORT=$(SHORT) LONG=$(LONG) \
_copybin src_exe=exe.manifest src_dll=dll.manifest src_so=so.manifest
quiet="-" \
inst_exe="$(INSTDIR)\bin" \
inst_dll="$(INSTDIR)\bin" \
inst_so="$(INSTDIR)\modules"
to the makefile automates the copy of the manifest files and resolves the
problem. Maybe it's worth adding this or something to run mt.exe and embed
the manifests.
--
Gustavo Lopes
[PATCH] mod_rewrite QSR RewriteRule flag
Posted by Vinko Vrsalovic <el...@vinko.cl>.
Hello,
I'm a newbie apache coder, so I apologize in advance for any mistake or
oversight :-)
I've coded this small patch to avoid the ugly hack of having to write
rules such as
RewriteRule .* /index.cgi?
to tell mod_rewrite "forget the QS" and thus provide greater consistency
in the flags "API".
It's fairly unintrusive and it's working AFAICT.
Please tell if you think it's worth it and that it works in your
particular rewrite setup. I marked with XXX: some doubts and TODO items
so please clarify those for me to fix, if interested.
I attach the patch against trunk, the docs patch, and a simple test
case.
Regards,
V.
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com>.
Only meant to help ASF with testing by much ppl as possible.
It is not on the (official) download page of the Apachelounge.
I stated to advise ASF, it's a RC and not released by ASF.
When I follow your advise: "... add the binaries to your ApacheLounge
***after*** the vote to release was tallied".
Then I see no way to let so much ppl test to verify the quality.
I plan to remove the binary or that they can download on request to me, a
pity.
Btw. I see no difference to publish unreleased binaries or sources like you
do.
Steffen
----- Original Message -----
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>; <in...@apachelounge.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 18:39
Subject: Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
> Very true. Steffan, in order to be a community player, we prefer that
> you do NOT publish unreleased binaries unless you VERY CLEARLY designate
> them as YOUR release of the ASF's code. Even at that, it's in poor form.
>
> Because you participate here, you'll see the vote tally and know when we
> start the short countdown between staging the release, and sending out
> the Announcement. We appreciate your enthusiasm, and encourage you to
> keep building/keep posting to help us determine if the release is ready.
>
> But we would really *prefer* you actually add the binaries to your
> ApacheLounge ***after*** the vote to release was tallied, please?
>
> Yours,
>
> Bill
>
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> On 1/6/07, Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com> wrote:
>>> Builds fine with Visual Studio 2005 Service Pack 1
>>>
>>> It is available with SSL at the Apache Lounge:
>>>
>>> http://www.apachelounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1237
>>
>> one note: if 2.2.4 proves to be a dud over the next few days, it won't
>> be "released" by the ASF; that wasn't clear from your introductory
>> post
>> .
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Very true. Steffan, in order to be a community player, we prefer that
you do NOT publish unreleased binaries unless you VERY CLEARLY designate
them as YOUR release of the ASF's code. Even at that, it's in poor form.
Because you participate here, you'll see the vote tally and know when we
start the short countdown between staging the release, and sending out
the Announcement. We appreciate your enthusiasm, and encourage you to
keep building/keep posting to help us determine if the release is ready.
But we would really *prefer* you actually add the binaries to your
ApacheLounge ***after*** the vote to release was tallied, please?
Yours,
Bill
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On 1/6/07, Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com> wrote:
>> Builds fine with Visual Studio 2005 Service Pack 1
>>
>> It is available with SSL at the Apache Lounge:
>>
>> http://www.apachelounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1237
>
> one note: if 2.2.4 proves to be a dud over the next few days, it won't
> be "released" by the ASF; that wasn't clear from your introductory
> post
> .
>
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com>.
I added "expected" to the text.
Steffen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Trawick" <tr...@gmail.com>
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 16:50
Subject: Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
> On 1/6/07, Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com> wrote:
>> Builds fine with Visual Studio 2005 Service Pack 1
>>
>> It is available with SSL at the Apache Lounge:
>>
>> http://www.apachelounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1237
>
> one note: if 2.2.4 proves to be a dud over the next few days, it won't
> be "released" by the ASF; that wasn't clear from your introductory
> post
>
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On 1/6/07, Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com> wrote:
> Builds fine with Visual Studio 2005 Service Pack 1
>
> It is available with SSL at the Apache Lounge:
>
> http://www.apachelounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1237
one note: if 2.2.4 proves to be a dud over the next few days, it won't
be "released" by the ASF; that wasn't clear from your introductory
post
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com>.
Builds fine with Visual Studio 2005 Service Pack 1
It is available with SSL at the Apache Lounge:
http://www.apachelounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1237
Steffen
----- Original Message -----
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 8:41
Subject: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon resync)
> contain the following tarballs for approval
>
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
>
> +/-1
> [ ] Release httpd 2.2.4
>
> Let the voting begin, and kick off 2.2.5 efforts. I understand Jim is
> still
> interested in RM'ing 2.2.5 later this month.
>
> Bill
>
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
This is a wild guess but
Line 82 of makefile.win:
!IF EXIST("srclib\zlib")
in the win-src packaged the zlib and openssl folders exist without the files
being in there.
I guess this broke it.
On 1/7/07, Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net> wrote:
>
> Seems to me that the autodetection which used to prevent mod_deflate
> from building on win32 unless zlib is in the srclib directory is broken.
> I have a vanilla unzip for the win-src, and it's failing on missing
> zlib headers...
>
> > On 1/6/07, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* <wrowe@rowe-clan.net
> > <ma...@rowe-clan.net>> wrote:
> >
> > http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon
> > resync)
> > contain the following tarballs for approval
> >
> > httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
> > httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
> > httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
> >
> > +/-1
> > [ ] Release httpd 2.2.4
> >
> > Let the voting begin, and kick off 2.2.5 efforts. I understand Jim
> > is still
> > interested in RM'ing 2.2.5 later this month.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~Jorge
>
--
~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>.
Seems to me that the autodetection which used to prevent mod_deflate
from building on win32 unless zlib is in the srclib directory is broken.
I have a vanilla unzip for the win-src, and it's failing on missing
zlib headers...
> On 1/6/07, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* <wrowe@rowe-clan.net
> <ma...@rowe-clan.net>> wrote:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon
> resync)
> contain the following tarballs for approval
>
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
>
> +/-1
> [ ] Release httpd 2.2.4
>
> Let the voting begin, and kick off 2.2.5 efforts. I understand Jim
> is still
> interested in RM'ing 2.2.5 later this month.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> --
> ~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
Doesn't seem to work for me. Compiles without errors just the regular
warnings.
But when I try to run any of the binaries I get:
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7573/errorvs2005jp1.jpg
I'm using visual studio 2005 as always. Following the same steps I've been
doing since 2.2.0
I tried with and without doing cvtdsp.pl -2005 without it won't compile due
to rc.exe errors.
Jorge
On 1/6/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon resync)
> contain the following tarballs for approval
>
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
>
> +/-1
> [ ] Release httpd 2.2.4
>
> Let the voting begin, and kick off 2.2.5 efforts. I understand Jim is
> still
> interested in RM'ing 2.2.5 later this month.
>
> Bill
>
--
~Jorge
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org>.
On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:41 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon
> resync)
> contain the following tarballs for approval
>
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
>
> +/-1
> [ ] Release httpd 2.2.4
+1 on Darwin/Mac OS X Server 10.4.8 on PowerPC and FreeBSD 6.1 on amd64
Darwin clarus.apache.org. 8.8.0 Darwin Kernel Version 8.8.0: Fri Sep
8 17:18:57 PDT 2006; root:xnu-792.12.6.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power
Macintosh powerpc
2.2.4-prefork:
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
t/ssl/v2.t 1 1 100.00% 1
3 tests and 2 subtests skipped.
Failed 1/76 test scripts, 98.68% okay. 1/2832 subtests failed, 99.96%
okay.
2.2.3-prefork:
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
t/ssl/v2.t 1 1 100.00% 1
3 tests and 2 subtests skipped.
Failed 1/76 test scripts, 98.68% okay. 1/2832 subtests failed, 99.96%
okay.
I'd daresay there's something wrong with the Perl SSL glue on this
box. Not a regression, not of worry.
FreeBSD freebsd6.sandla.org. 6.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE #0: Wed
Nov 29 12:51:00 PST 2006 root@freebsd6.sandla.org.:/usr/obj/usr/
src/sys/SMP amd64
2.2.4-prefork:
All tests successful, 3 tests and 2 subtests skipped.
2.2.3-prefork:
All tests successful, 3 tests and 2 subtests skipped.
No regressions
--
sctemme@apache.org http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jan 6, 2007, at 2:41 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon
> resync)
> contain the following tarballs for approval
>
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
>
> +/-1
> [ ] Release httpd 2.2.4
>
> Let the voting begin, and kick off 2.2.5 efforts. I understand Jim
> is still
> interested in RM'ing 2.2.5 later this month.
>
Tested via Perl test framework, no regressions:
OS X 10.4.8 (PPC)
Sol 8
SUSE 10.0
FreeBSD 5.5R
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon resync)
> contain the following tarballs for approval
>
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
>
> +/-1
> [ ] Release httpd 2.2.4
Builds clean on RHEL4 as an rpm. +1.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On 1/6/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon resync)
> contain the following tarballs for approval
>
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
for y'alls reading pleasure, one big patch file from 2.2.3->2.2.4 via
svn diff as well as smaller patch files with just the source changes,
just the doc changes, etc., are at
http://people.apache.org/~trawick/2.2.4/