You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org> on 2012/11/12 14:15:52 UTC

Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Hi folks,

At ApacheCon I discussed with the few httpd and Infra folks
that it would be a Really Good Idea to have, once again, an
MSI build for Windows.

Of course we shouldn't be satisfied with the same arduous
release process as we had for 2.2 - and instead strive to
automate it!

I have opened an INFRA ticket

   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5509

to setup a Windows Server VM/buildbot - and am now looking for
volunteers to step forward. - Just raise your hand here and
update the the above ticket with your Apache ID. (Yes, you need
to be a committer already)

You'll get a login on the machine once it's setup and can fiddle
around and poke until you make it work - out of the box.


o/~

-- 
Igor Galić

Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515  2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.


----- Original Message -----
> Am 14.11.2012 12:53, schrieb Guenter Knauf:
> > Am 12.11.2012 17:45, schrieb Issac Goldstand:
> >> but we really need something.
> > I know that Gregg has 'something' which is not MSI but an EXE
> > installer,
> > but it works, and I asked already a while back if we should push
> > this
> > out, but there was no further interest / agreement here :-(
> >
> > Gregg, can you perhaps put up at p.a.o what you have so far so that
> > others can take a look and test?
> oh, and please also post a summarize of what we discussed about
> default
> location (system drive root vs 'Program Files') because of the right
> issues with Vista and up ...

To emphasized this again: I asked infra for a "Windows Server VM with
the latest Microsoft buildtools"[1] - so this is bound to be
"Vista and up"...

> Gün.

So long,

i

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5509

-- 
Igor Galić

Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515  2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.

Le 16/11/2012 21:21, Gregg Smith a écrit :
> Another 'something' is NSIS (Nullsoft) which has been picked up by 
> others and is over at sourceforge.
> I used to use it a long time ago but had to give it up for Inno Setup 
> because it was dropped by the original author.
> A nice thing about it is the use and availability of plugins to do a 
> lot of things even Inno cannot do. It's probably not as sharp a 
> learning curve as WIX. Of course, it would mean starting from scratch.
>
> I will take inventory on this Inno Setup scripts and see what is left 
> to do here in a day or two.
>
> Gregg
>
I also use Inno Setup (and NSIS in the past) at work. I could try to 
give some help from time to time if needed.
We also chose Inno Setup because it was more actively developed and 
maintained.

Both can only, AFAIK, build .exe files and not .msi.

CJ

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Will <wi...@lxcenter.org>.

Is there a document to install on Windows from source?  I'd like to run 
through it and create and msi and try to automate the process.

-Will

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gregg Smith" <gl...@gknw.net>
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build


> On 11/16/2012 12:08 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
>> On 11/14/2012 3:56 AM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>>> Am 14.11.2012 12:53, schrieb Guenter Knauf:
>>>> I know that Gregg has 'something' which is not MSI but an EXE 
>>>> installer,
>>>> but it works, and I asked already a while back if we should push this
>>>> out, but there was no further interest / agreement here :-(
>> The 'something' is Inno Setup.
>> 'works' is relative to as much is completed so far.
>
> Another 'something' is NSIS (Nullsoft) which has been picked up by others 
> and is over at sourceforge.
> I used to use it a long time ago but had to give it up for Inno Setup 
> because it was dropped by the original author.
> A nice thing about it is the use and availability of plugins to do a lot 
> of things even Inno cannot do. It's probably not as sharp a learning curve 
> as WIX. Of course, it would mean starting from scratch.
>
> I will take inventory on this Inno Setup scripts and see what is left to 
> do here in a day or two.
>
> Gregg

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Gregg Smith <gl...@gknw.net>.

On 11/16/2012 12:08 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
> On 11/14/2012 3:56 AM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> Am 14.11.2012 12:53, schrieb Guenter Knauf:
>>> I know that Gregg has 'something' which is not MSI but an EXE 
>>> installer,
>>> but it works, and I asked already a while back if we should push this
>>> out, but there was no further interest / agreement here :-(
> The 'something' is Inno Setup.
> 'works' is relative to as much is completed so far.

Another 'something' is NSIS (Nullsoft) which has been picked up by 
others and is over at sourceforge.
I used to use it a long time ago but had to give it up for Inno Setup 
because it was dropped by the original author.
A nice thing about it is the use and availability of plugins to do a lot 
of things even Inno cannot do. It's probably not as sharp a learning 
curve as WIX. Of course, it would mean starting from scratch.

I will take inventory on this Inno Setup scripts and see what is left to 
do here in a day or two.

Gregg

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.

> Has anyone consider that in the meanwhile we update our
> website to officially endorse ApacheLounge?

-0.9; Seems like a lot of baggage to carry, and I think we should have
our own contributed builds.

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Gregg Smith <gl...@gknw.net> wrote:
> On 11/29/2012 7:42 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>>
>>
>> Has anyone consider that in the meanwhile we update our
>> website to officially endorse ApacheLounge?
>>
> Not endorse any, just list the possibilities, there are a few.

I definitely feel better about that phrasing.

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Will <wi...@lxcenter.org>.

I would just like to know your thoughts on the layout that they use with the 
zip.

-Will

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Covener" <co...@gmail.com>
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build


> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Will <wi...@lxcenter.org> 
> wrote:
>> Does you guys agree with the layout that Apache Lounge uses?
>
> I wouldn't interpret the proposal that way.

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Will <wi...@lxcenter.org> wrote:
> Does you guys agree with the layout that Apache Lounge uses?

I wouldn't interpret the proposal that way.

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Will <wi...@lxcenter.org>.

Does you guys agree with the layout that Apache Lounge uses?

-Will
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman 
  To: dev@httpd.apache.org 
  Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:35 PM
  Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build


  +1

  On Nov 29, 2012 2:34 PM, "Gregg Smith" <gl...@gknw.net> wrote:

    On 11/29/2012 7:42 AM, Igor Galić wrote:


      Has anyone consider that in the meanwhile we update our
      website to officially endorse ApacheLounge?


    Not endorse any, just list the possibilities, there are a few.

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman <bu...@buanzo.com.ar>.

+1
On Nov 29, 2012 2:34 PM, "Gregg Smith" <gl...@gknw.net> wrote:

> On 11/29/2012 7:42 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
>>
>> Has anyone consider that in the meanwhile we update our
>> website to officially endorse ApacheLounge?
>>
>>  Not endorse any, just list the possibilities, there are a few.
>

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Gregg Smith <gl...@gknw.net>.

On 11/29/2012 7:42 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
> Has anyone consider that in the meanwhile we update our
> website to officially endorse ApacheLounge?
>
Not endorse any, just list the possibilities, there are a few.

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.


----- Original Message -----
> On 11/28/2012 1:26 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
> > I believe there's a couple of things we all sort of agree on:
> > * current state is not welcomed by users and "early" adopters
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by current state. Regardless, early
> adopters
> know no better.
> > * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build
> >
> > * That's a big task, so we should start with small steps:
> >
> >    * Getting the damn thing to build with the latest VC
> I disagree, I think we should use one where the current mod_php will
> load (i.e. match versions)
> which is currently VC9 (2008). Also, I know no one wants to support
> XP
> or Server 2003, but these are being used and will stick around till
> completely dead (April 2014 IIRC). The "latest" VC builds will not
> run
> on either these OSs.


I think the main reason I consider this to be a good idea is that
supporting a stable 2.4 ABI with VC9 means committing to a compiler
which is already 4 years old.

PHP doesn't support our builds, they support Apache Lounge's.
Apache Lounge uses VC9 because of PHP, I presume.

> >    * Getting it to build without babysitting
> define babysitting.

* it can be scripted and hence executed on a buildbot
* it doesn't break with every new release

> >    * using that build to create something that can be installed
> >      one way or another: zip, msi, whatevz
> >    * (semi) automating the build
> 
> Gregg


Has anyone consider that in the meanwhile we update our
website to officially endorse ApacheLounge?

i
 

-- 
Igor Galić

Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515  2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.

* Gregg Smith wrote:

> On 11/28/2012 8:10 AM, André Malo wrote:
> > Some individuals have provided those builds. Nobody has voted on them
> > (because, how could one - I know, I wouldn't). They are not official
> > relases.
>
> Which to the average user that does not know this policy, can easily be
> construed as Official. I have not read every word here but I see nothing
> jumping out at me stating they are to not to considered official.
> http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/

Yes :/ (same for netware builds, FWIW)

nd
-- 
"Die Untergeschosse der Sempergalerie bleiben währenddessen aus
 statistischen Gründen geflutet." -- Spiegel Online

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Gregg Smith <gl...@gknw.net>.

On 11/28/2012 8:10 AM, André Malo wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 November 2012 17:02:30 Yehuda Katz wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:35 AM, André Malo<nd...@perlig.de>  wrote:
>>>> You know that, and I know that. Jst as our Windows users know
>>>> they have no use for source code.
>>> The discussion is moot. The ASF will not provide binary software.
>> Is that a new policy? ASF has provided (i.e. made available on
>> httpd.apache.org distribution mirrors) Windows binaries of HTTPD for (I can
>> say every release, since I did not check, but you get the idea).
>> The last one released was on 30-Jan-2012 of
>> httpd-2.2.22-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8t.msi (see
>> http://www.us.apache.org/dist//httpd/binaries/win32/).
>> There are *still* NetWare binaries being built.
> No, the ASF has not. And the policy (nor this discussion) is not new.
>
> Some individuals have provided those builds. Nobody has voted on them
> (because, how could one - I know, I wouldn't). They are not official relases.
Which to the average user that does not know this policy, can easily be 
construed as Official. I have not read every word here but I see nothing 
jumping out at me stating they are to not to considered official.
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.

On Wednesday 28 November 2012 17:02:30 Yehuda Katz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:35 AM, André Malo <nd...@perlig.de> wrote:
> > > You know that, and I know that. Jst as our Windows users know
> > > they have no use for source code.
> >
> > The discussion is moot. The ASF will not provide binary software.
>
> Is that a new policy? ASF has provided (i.e. made available on
> httpd.apache.org distribution mirrors) Windows binaries of HTTPD for (I can
> say every release, since I did not check, but you get the idea).
> The last one released was on 30-Jan-2012 of
> httpd-2.2.22-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8t.msi (see
> http://www.us.apache.org/dist//httpd/binaries/win32/).
> There are *still* NetWare binaries being built.

No, the ASF has not. And the policy (nor this discussion) is not new.

Some individuals have provided those builds. Nobody has voted on them 
(because, how could one - I know, I wouldn't). They are not official relases.

And that's where the circle closes. The ASF does not and can not provide 
binary builds. Volunteering individuals may do that.

nd

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Yehuda Katz <ye...@ymkatz.net>.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:35 AM, André Malo <nd...@perlig.de> wrote:

> > You know that, and I know that. Jst as our Windows users know
> > they have no use for source code.
>
> The discussion is moot. The ASF will not provide binary software.
>

Is that a new policy? ASF has provided (i.e. made available on
httpd.apache.org distribution mirrors) Windows binaries of HTTPD for (I can
say every release, since I did not check, but you get the idea).
The last one released was on 30-Jan-2012 of
httpd-2.2.22-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8t.msi (see
http://www.us.apache.org/dist//httpd/binaries/win32/).
There are *still* NetWare binaries being built.

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>.

> The discussion is moot. The ASF will not provide binary software.
>
> nd
>

<laughs>

Yeah, try selling that to the AOO project and see what happens...

   Issac

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.

On Wednesday 28 November 2012 15:01:15 Igor Galić wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> > > Sent: Mittwoch, 28. November 2012 13:22
> > > To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:26 AM, Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Exactly. Binaries are just convenience. I support people here that
> > want to create
> > whatever Windows binary (zip, exe, msi) as a convenience to our
> > users, but the official
> > distributions are IMHO always source distributions.
>
> You know that, and I know that. Jst as our Windows users know
> they have no use for source code.

The discussion is moot. The ASF will not provide binary software.

nd

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.


----- Original Message -----
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> > Sent: Mittwoch, 28. November 2012 13:22
> > To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
> > 
> > 
> > On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:26 AM, Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build
> > >
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> Exactly. Binaries are just convenience. I support people here that
> want to create
> whatever Windows binary (zip, exe, msi) as a convenience to our
> users, but the official
> distributions are IMHO always source distributions.

You know that, and I know that. Jst as our Windows users know
they have no use for source code.

i

> Regards
> 
> Rüdiger
> 

-- 
Igor Galić

Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515  2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Gregg Smith <gl...@gknw.net>.

On 11/28/2012 1:26 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
> I believe there's a couple of things we all sort of agree on:
> * current state is not welcomed by users and "early" adopters

I'm not sure what you mean by current state. Regardless, early adopters 
know no better.
> * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build
>
> * That's a big task, so we should start with small steps:
>
>    * Getting the damn thing to build with the latest VC
I disagree, I think we should use one where the current mod_php will 
load (i.e. match versions)
which is currently VC9 (2008). Also, I know no one wants to support XP 
or Server 2003, but these are being used and will stick around till 
completely dead (April 2014 IIRC). The "latest" VC builds will not run 
on either these OSs.
>    * Getting it to build without babysitting
define babysitting.
>    * using that build to create something that can be installed
>      one way or another: zip, msi, whatevz
>    * (semi) automating the build

Gregg

RE: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by PKU-bswen <bs...@pku.edu.cn>.

A Windows binary build is important to do for both influencing the Windows users and the code design quality of Apache itself, unless you all hate to care about both;)

Regards,
Bing


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 8:22 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build


On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:26 AM, Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org> wrote:
> 
> * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build
> 

Why?

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Gregg Smith <gl...@gknw.net>.

On 11/28/2012 7:20 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> There is far far far more httpd users on other operating systems than 
> windows, what next,  do binaries for all maintained RH, Suse, Gentoo, 
> BSD, debian...... and so on .... as well... I mean surely nobody wants 
> to be seen as catering for the minority and stuff the majority... if 
> so, then quit your sys admin job and join politics :)

True, but RH, Suse, Gentoo, BSD, debian .... and so on 
supplies/maintains Apache with the OS. Microsoft supplies only IIS. That 
is the difference.

Regards,

Gregg

RE: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.

On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 12:27 +0000, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> > Sent: Mittwoch, 28. November 2012 13:22
> > To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
> > 
> > 
> > On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:26 AM, Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build
> > >
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> Exactly. Binaries are just convenience. I support people here that want to create
> whatever Windows binary (zip, exe, msi) as a convenience to our users, but the official
> distributions are IMHO always source distributions.
> 

+1

There is far far far more httpd users on other operating systems than
windows, what next,  do binaries for all maintained RH, Suse, Gentoo,
BSD, debian...... and so on .... as well... I mean surely nobody wants
to be seen as catering for the minority and stuff the majority... if so,
then quit your sys admin job and join politics :)

RE: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <ru...@vodafone.com>.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 28. November 2012 13:22
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build
> 
> 
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:26 AM, Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org> wrote:
> >
> > * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build
> >
> 
> Why?

Exactly. Binaries are just convenience. I support people here that want to create
whatever Windows binary (zip, exe, msi) as a convenience to our users, but the official
distributions are IMHO always source distributions.

Regards

Rüdiger

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.

On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:26 AM, Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org> wrote:
> 
> * we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build
> 

Why?

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.


----- Original Message -----
> > the only point to resolve is that Gregg cant do the releases self
> > but needs
> > a PMC for signing and putting up the artifacts - but I'm willing to
> > assist
> > with that once we get some agreement to put his stuff up
> 
> Sorry for not commenting earlier .  I'm +0.9 (+1 but know this stuff
> is not up my alley).
> 
> I don't think we need to wait for these to be perfect, but we should
> somehow telegraph that the build/packaging of contributed Windows
> binaries is a work in progress.

I believe there's a couple of things we all sort of agree on:

* current state is not welcomed by users and "early" adopters

* we (the ASF) should provide an official Windows Build

* That's a big task, so we should start with small steps:

  * Getting the damn thing to build with the latest VC
  * Getting it to build without babysitting
  * using that build to create something that can be installed
    one way or another: zip, msi, whatevz
  * (semi) automating the build

This effort doesn't have to be driven by a single person.
Particularly because the single steps may require different kinds
of skills and talents. (Speaking with my OpenCSW Hat on: Building
software for a "non standard" platform is boring and frustrating ;)


So long,

i

-- 
Igor Galić

Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515  2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.

> the only point to resolve is that Gregg cant do the releases self but needs
> a PMC for signing and putting up the artifacts - but I'm willing to assist
> with that once we get some agreement to put his stuff up

Sorry for not commenting earlier .  I'm +0.9 (+1 but know this stuff
is not up my alley).

I don't think we need to wait for these to be perfect, but we should
somehow telegraph that the build/packaging of contributed Windows
binaries is a work in progress.

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Gregg Smith <gl...@gknw.net>.

On 11/27/2012 5:11 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hey folks,
> Am 27.11.2012 19:13, schrieb Eric Covener:
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Igor Galić<i....@brainsware.org>  
>> wrote:
>>> just to revive this thread again, here's a current comment
>>> thread to our documentation on:
>>>
>>>    http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/platform/windows.html#comment_502
>>>
>>>
>>> There's a couple of things to take away from this:
>>>
>>> * We made no announcements (on our website) that we're essentially
>>>   dropping Windows support with 2.4 (until further notice)
>>
>> For posterities sake -- we haven't dropped Windows support.
>>
>> There just aren't (currently) contributed binaries or an installer
>> posted on our website.  A note would be nice, binaries would be nicer,
>> and an installer would probably be the nicest.
> well, I cant really get this now; I psoted here 2 times, and Gregg did 
> post self: we have binaries available - just not msi but exe installer;
> and Gregg has even 64-bit versions - why dont we get some feedback 
> about if we should put them out into release folder??
> I believe these binaries are good enough to be released, and for the 
> installer I'd say: we change the default path to c:\apache24 which is 
> less trouble to handle on Vista and up, and see what we get on 
> feedback of the users ...
> I would even be fine with only a zip archive with a batch file or 
> script for fixing up paths in the conf file and creating a service, 
> and perhaps we should offer that too ...
+1 on the .zip files as we have these available now. Can work 
towards/finish an installer after there's some sort of agreement.

Gregg

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.

Hey folks,
Am 27.11.2012 19:13, schrieb Eric Covener:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Igor Galić<i....@brainsware.org>  wrote:
>> just to revive this thread again, here's a current comment
>> thread to our documentation on:
>>
>>    http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/platform/windows.html#comment_502
>>
>>
>> There's a couple of things to take away from this:
>>
>> * We made no announcements (on our website) that we're essentially
>>   dropping Windows support with 2.4 (until further notice)
>
> For posterities sake -- we haven't dropped Windows support.
>
> There just aren't (currently) contributed binaries or an installer
> posted on our website.  A note would be nice, binaries would be nicer,
> and an installer would probably be the nicest.
well, I cant really get this now; I psoted here 2 times, and Gregg did 
post self: we have binaries available - just not msi but exe installer;
and Gregg has even 64-bit versions - why dont we get some feedback about 
if we should put them out into release folder??
I believe these binaries are good enough to be released, and for the 
installer I'd say: we change the default path to c:\apache24 which is 
less trouble to handle on Vista and up, and see what we get on feedback 
of the users ...
I would even be fine with only a zip archive with a batch file or script 
for fixing up paths in the conf file and creating a service, and perhaps 
we should offer that too ...

the only point to resolve is that Gregg cant do the releases self but 
needs a PMC for signing and putting up the artifacts - but I'm willing 
to assist with that once we get some agreement to put his stuff up.

Gün.

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org> wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
> just to revive this thread again, here's a current comment
> thread to our documentation on:
>
>   http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/platform/windows.html#comment_502
>
>
> There's a couple of things to take away from this:
>
> * We made no announcements (on our website) that we're essentially
>  dropping Windows support with 2.4 (until further notice)

For posterities sake -- we haven't dropped Windows support.

There just aren't (currently) contributed binaries or an installer
posted on our website.  A note would be nice, binaries would be nicer,
and an installer would probably be the nicest.

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.

Hey folks,

just to revive this thread again, here's a current comment
thread to our documentation on:

  http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/platform/windows.html#comment_502


There's a couple of things to take away from this:

* We made no announcements (on our website) that we're essentially
 dropping Windows support with 2.4 (until further notice)

 We should change that ;)

* Some people still don't quite grasp that the ASF is driven by
 volunteers, no matter how professional the output may look.


i

----- Original Message -----
> On 18 Nov 2012, at 4:41 PM, Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > Seeing how much trouble Debian's default layout causes for support
> > I'd rather we don't mess with that. Our layout is well defined,
> > well documented and well tested. Moving everything elsewhere is
> > confusing at best.
> 
> +1.
> 
> At the very least we should continue during the v2.4 cycle what we
> started in the v2.4 cycle, and an upgrade shouldn't break existing
> configs within reason.
> 
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
> 
> 

-- 
Igor Galić

Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515  2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.

On 18 Nov 2012, at 4:41 PM, Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org> wrote:

> Seeing how much trouble Debian's default layout causes for support
> I'd rather we don't mess with that. Our layout is well defined,
> well documented and well tested. Moving everything elsewhere is
> confusing at best.

+1.

At the very least we should continue during the v2.4 cycle what we started in the v2.4 cycle, and an upgrade shouldn't break existing configs within reason.

Regards,
Graham
--

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.


----- Original Message -----
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Issac Goldstand <
> margol@beamartyr.net > wrote:
> 
> 
> Why not go the "IIS" route and use a c:\wwwroot or the like for non
> program-file stuff (logs, cgi-bin, docs, htdocs, conf)?
> 
> That is similar to what the Debian package maintainers do (see
> http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout ).
> I just wonder if it is really a good idea to have the "official"
> builds put the folders in a different place than building from
> source.
> The only other "official" binary for 2.4 is for Netware and there is
> no documentation on the wiki page if the layout is different.
> 
> If you are looking for the place for data, the correct place for
> conf, logs, and maybe cgi-bin would be in a subfolder in
> %PROGRAMDATA% (PROGRAMDATA is usually C:\ProgramData\).
> (That is where MySQL builds appear to put their data too.)
> I would say that htdocs should be in a subfolder %PUBLIC%.
> See this MSDN blog post for more info:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/cjacks/archive/2008/02/05/where-should-i-write-program-data-instead-of-program-files.aspx
> 
> Other notes about this proposal:
> 
> 
> The trick to this would be that some people enable mod_userdir in a
> way the will cause overlap and potential security issues:
> UserDir C:/Users/*/Website
> If htdocs is in C:\Users\Public\Website, then <Location(Match)> rules
> would proably not apply to it if accessed as ~public, which is a
> security problem)
> 
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Issac Goldstand
> <ma...@beamartyr.net>wrote:
> 
> > Why not go the "IIS" route and use a c:\wwwroot or the like for non
> > program-file stuff (logs, cgi-bin, docs, htdocs, conf)?
> 
> 
> That is similar to what the Debian package maintainers do (see
> http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout).
> I just wonder if it is really a good idea to have the "official"
> builds put
> the folders in a different place than building from source.
> The only other "official" binary for 2.4 is for Netware and there is
> no
> documentation on the wiki page if the layout is different.
> 
> If you are looking for the place for data, the correct place for
> conf,
> logs, and maybe cgi-bin would be in a subfolder in %PROGRAMDATA%
> (PROGRAMDATA is usually C:\ProgramData\).
> (That is where MySQL builds appear to put their data too.)
> I would say that htdocs should be in a subfolder %PUBLIC%.
> See this MSDN blog post for more info:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/cjacks/archive/2008/02/05/where-should-i-write-program-data-instead-of-program-files.aspx
> 
> Other notes about this proposal:
> 
> > The trick to this would be that some people enable mod_userdir in a
> > way
> > the will cause overlap and potential security issues:
> > UserDir C:/Users/*/Website
> > If htdocs is in C:\Users\Public\Website, then <Location(Match)>
> > rules
> > would proably not apply to it if accessed as ~public, which is a
> > security
> > problem)
> 


Seeing how much trouble Debian's default layout causes for support
I'd rather we don't mess with that. Our layout is well defined,
well documented and well tested. Moving everything elsewhere is
confusing at best.

i

-- 
Igor Galić

Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515  2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Yehuda Katz <ye...@ymkatz.net>.

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>wrote:

> Why not go the "IIS" route and use a c:\wwwroot or the like for non
> program-file stuff (logs, cgi-bin, docs, htdocs, conf)?

That is similar to what the Debian package maintainers do (see
http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DistrosDefaultLayout).
I just wonder if it is really a good idea to have the "official" builds put
the folders in a different place than building from source.
The only other "official" binary for 2.4 is for Netware and there is no
documentation on the wiki page if the layout is different.

If you are looking for the place for data, the correct place for conf,
logs, and maybe cgi-bin would be in a subfolder in %PROGRAMDATA%
(PROGRAMDATA is usually C:\ProgramData\).
(That is where MySQL builds appear to put their data too.)
I would say that htdocs should be in a subfolder %PUBLIC%.
See this MSDN blog post for more info:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/cjacks/archive/2008/02/05/where-should-i-write-program-data-instead-of-program-files.aspx

Other notes about this proposal:

> The trick to this would be that some people enable mod_userdir in a way
> the will cause overlap and potential security issues:
> UserDir C:/Users/*/Website
> If htdocs is in C:\Users\Public\Website, then <Location(Match)> rules
> would proably not apply to it if accessed as ~public, which is a security
> problem)

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>.

>
> Program Files vs. drive root
>
> PF pros
> everything in there is protected from users other than admin
> PF cons
> everything in there is protected from users other than admin which
> In Vista/7/8 the administrator account is disabled but you can run
> things as admin if your user has admin privileges.
> mostly causes problems with configuring and seeing any changes in htdocs
> (because they really go to the virtual store)
> pid file and logs cannot be written in some cases.

Why not go the "IIS" route and use a c:\wwwroot or the like for non 
program-file stuff (logs, cgi-bin, docs, htdocs, conf)?

   Issac

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Gregg Smith <gl...@gknw.net>.

On 11/14/2012 3:56 AM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Am 14.11.2012 12:53, schrieb Guenter Knauf:
>> I know that Gregg has 'something' which is not MSI but an EXE installer,
>> but it works, and I asked already a while back if we should push this
>> out, but there was no further interest / agreement here :-(
>>
>> Gregg, can you perhaps put up at p.a.o what you have so far so that
>> others can take a look and test?
> oh, and please also post a summarize of what we discussed about 
> default location (system drive root vs 'Program Files') because of the 
> right issues with Vista and up ...
The 'something' is Inno Setup.
'works' is relative to as much is completed so far.

I had to put this on hold for a few weeks for real life. I should get 
back to working on it soon.

http://people.apache.org/~gsmith/httpd/installer/

Program Files vs. drive root

PF pros
everything in there is protected from users other than admin
PF cons
everything in there is protected from users other than admin which
In Vista/7/8 the administrator account is disabled but you can run 
things as admin if your user has admin privileges.
mostly causes problems with configuring and seeing any changes in htdocs 
(because they really go to the virtual store)
pid file and logs cannot be written in some cases.

Drive Root cons/pros depending on the use case
nothing in there is protected from users other than admin
anyone can configure
anyone can modify htdocs
anyone can start apache at the console (unless mod_auth_digest or 
mod_slotmem_shm are loaded [only tested in Vista])
the Apache service can run as a user other than SYSTEM (which allows 
Apache to use file shares) and Apache can be locked down to only read, 
read/write in certain areas of the hard drive (jailed)

That's the quickest summary I can give on that.

Gregg

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.

Am 14.11.2012 12:53, schrieb Guenter Knauf:
> Am 12.11.2012 17:45, schrieb Issac Goldstand:
>> but we really need something.
> I know that Gregg has 'something' which is not MSI but an EXE installer,
> but it works, and I asked already a while back if we should push this
> out, but there was no further interest / agreement here :-(
>
> Gregg, can you perhaps put up at p.a.o what you have so far so that
> others can take a look and test?
oh, and please also post a summarize of what we discussed about default 
location (system drive root vs 'Program Files') because of the right 
issues with Vista and up ...

Gün.

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.

Am 12.11.2012 17:45, schrieb Issac Goldstand:
> but we really need something.
I know that Gregg has 'something' which is not MSI but an EXE installer, 
but it works, and I asked already a while back if we should push this 
out, but there was no further interest / agreement here :-(

Gregg, can you perhaps put up at p.a.o what you have so far so that 
others can take a look and test?

Gün.

Re: Volunteers to drive an MSI build

Posted by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>.

On 12/11/2012 18:03, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> William Rowe said he was working on a new WiX-based installer

That would be great if Bill has the cycles to push it through - I know 
he's been uber-busy for a long while already, and he has the best 
working knowledge of windows installer-y things so far, but we really 
need something.  Regardless, it would still be great to hook the WiX 
installer into a buildbot.