Re: Binaries for 1.1

[Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com>]

On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I think we should start signing up for pre-compiled binaries to be
> available when we announce 1.1... It would be nice to have them
> available as well as the source. With the bin's would be a short README
> detailing the particulars of the build.
> 
> I'm up for A/UX.

I know there's a process for this somewhere, ah yes:

http://hyperreal.com/httpd/binaries.html

There's one more issue I want input on (initializing the error_log
variable to stderr) before packaging up 1.1b5.  Hopefully I can get enough
feedback to do that tonight.  When that happens, each person responsible
for a platform should download it fresh, do both a standard compilation
and a complete (minus mod_auth_msql, with config_log in place of
common_log, -DSTATUS, without dld) compilation.  Do you have to run it
against a live server?  I'd say no, if any functionality was broken then
either we've found out about it now or a single test *won't* determine it.

Tomorrow evening, barring any major problems that the testing shows, I'll
rename the source "1.1", package that, and put it up live.  The platform
builders then have 24 hours to grab the source and build the binary
distributions as described in that binaries.html document.  Wednesday
morning I'll send out the announcement to apache-announce and c.i.w.s.u.

I incorporated the volunteers for platforms like so:

1) Mark Imbrianco, you're now on for irix (I was doing it, but our
   compiler installation is instable currently)

2) Both Andrew Wilson and Brian Tao are on the bill for FreeBSD 2.x - 
   I don't care who does it first.

3) Aram, I presume you're still on for Linux, if not, Michael Douglass
   can fill in.

4) Rob Hartill, can you still build the NeXT distribution?

5) Randy, are you still interested in SunOS 4.1.x?  If not, could you
   hand it off to Michael?

That should be it.  I'll send out a message when 1.1b5 is ready for
pickup.

I know this is going to be a trying couple of days, but we're almost
there.  

	Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com  www.apache.org  hyperreal.com  http://www.organic.com/JOBS

Re: Binaries for 1.1

[Paul Richards <p....@elsevier.co.uk>]

Randy Terbush writes:
 > > 
 > > 5) Randy, are you still interested in SunOS 4.1.x?  If not, could you
 > >    hand it off to Michael?
 > 
 > I would happily hand this off to Michael if possible since I nolonger
 > have easy access to 4.1. I also don't have access to BSDI_1.1 any more.
 > I doubt there is much of a need for this version, but I could be wrong.
 > 
 > Is anyone doing Solaris 2.5? Is it significantly different from 2.4?
 > I would be happy to do 2.5 if there is a need. I can also do the
 > FreeBSD compile, but that appears to be well covered.
 > 
 > Is the FreeBSD distribution being put in pkg format?


Can someone contact Jordan Hubbard *very quickly* and tell him there's a
release due in the next few days. He's just about to do the 2.1.5 cdrom
and it's still got 1.0.5 on it.

Re: Binaries for 1.1

[Paul Richards <p....@elsevier.co.uk>]

Chuck Murcko writes:
 > Did anyone get Solaris?
 > 
 > I can do 2.4 if no one's signed up yet. Also BSDI 2.1, but statically
 > linked FreeBSD binaries will work there in a pinch.
 > 

I doubt that they will unless Apache is just lucky in the syscalls they
use. BSDI 2.x has diverged from FreeBSD so they can't run our binaries
anymore. FreeBSD can run BSDI 2.x binaries since we have an emulation layer
for BSDI 2.x (as well as most other i386 unix platforms).