You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Paul Smedley <pa...@despamsmedley.id.au> on 2009/08/11 14:38:48 UTC
Re: Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Hi Guys,
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:36:29 UTC, trawick@gmail.com wrote:
> * The last OS/2-specific MPM change I can find was in 2003
> (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=101826).
>
> Votes:
>
> [ ] yank BeOS MPM from trunk
> [ ] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk
>
> (I'm +1 on both votes)
Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2
maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role.
I've been building Apache2 on OS/2 for the last 4 years or so, I just
enver got around to submitting patches. If the support is pulled, it
will make my life harder continuing to maintain the port.
--
Cheers,
Paul.
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Posted by Paul Smedley <pa...@despamsmedley.id.au>.
Hi Graham,
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:30:37 UTC, Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>
wrote:
> This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.
>
> Paul Smedley wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2
> > maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role.
> >
> > I've been building Apache2 on OS/2 for the last 4 years or so, I just
> > enver got around to submitting patches. If the support is pulled, it
> > will make my life harder continuing to maintain the port.
>
> If someone is will to maintain it, +1 for letting it stay.
I will maintain it :) I'm moving house in 10 days, so once we get
settled in, I'll tidy up what I have here, and submit :)
--
Cheers,
Paul.
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Paul Smedley wrote:
> Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2
> maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role.
>
> I've been building Apache2 on OS/2 for the last 4 years or so, I just
> enver got around to submitting patches. If the support is pulled, it
> will make my life harder continuing to maintain the port.
If someone is will to maintain it, +1 for letting it stay.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Hi Paul,
Paul Smedley schrieb:
>> I hope you've noticed that the OS/2 MPM is gone from trunk ;)
>
> Actually no, as I just build from the tar.bz2 on each release :)
hehe, our snapshots are stalled for the last 15 months - so either
checkout from SVN, or get snapshots from my home:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/snapshots/
Günter.
Re: Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Posted by Paul Smedley <pa...@despamsmedley.id.au>.
Hi Jeff,
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:09:13 UTC, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Paul Smedley <
> pauldespam@despamsmedley.id.au> wrote:
>
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:36:29 UTC, trawick@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > * The last OS/2-specific MPM change I can find was in 2003
> > > (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=101826).
> > >
> > > Votes:
> > >
> > > [ ] yank BeOS MPM from trunk
> > > [ ] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk
> > >
> > > (I'm +1 on both votes)
> >
> > Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2
> > maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role.
>
>
> I hope you've noticed that the OS/2 MPM is gone from trunk ;)
Actually no, as I just build from the tar.bz2 on each release :)
> All you need to get OS/2 working in trunk is version control *somewhere*,
> and to check out the MPM itself on top of httpd trunk.
>
> When patches are submitted to add OS/2 support back to the core, please take
> the opportunity to help figure out the real meaning of the conditional logic
> so that we don't continually maintain stuff like
>
> #if WINDOWS || NETWARE || OS2 || xx.
>
> (I anticipate that the Windows and NetWare maintainers will assist. No
> worries here if these are tracked by a handful of new "characteristics,"
> almost all of which are common between these three platforms ;) )
OK - I'll try get to this real soon now. I'm moving house in two weeks
though, so there may be some delays :)
--
Cheers,
Paul.
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Posted by Paul Smedley <pa...@despamsmedley.id.au>.
Hi,
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:43:08 UTC, Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com> wrote:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
> > Jeff Trawick schrieb:
> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Paul Smedley
> >> <pauldespam@despamsmedley.id.au <ma...@despamsmedley.id.au>>
> >> wrote:
> >> Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2
> >> maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role.
> >>
> >>
> >> I hope you've noticed that the OS/2 MPM is gone from trunk ;)
> > hehe, the cat bites into its own tail :)
> > - APR is broken for OS/2
> > - he needs Subversion to fix it properly with us
> > - Subversion needs APR --> back to start :)
>
> But he maintains APR on OS/2, so all's well :)
Correct - I have working builds of APR and subversion here for OS/2 :)
--
Cheers,
Paul.
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Jeff Trawick schrieb:
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Paul Smedley
>> <pauldespam@despamsmedley.id.au <ma...@despamsmedley.id.au>>
>> wrote:
>> Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2
>> maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role.
>>
>>
>> I hope you've noticed that the OS/2 MPM is gone from trunk ;)
> hehe, the cat bites into its own tail :)
> - APR is broken for OS/2
> - he needs Subversion to fix it properly with us
> - Subversion needs APR --> back to start :)
But he maintains APR on OS/2, so all's well :)
--
Nick Kew
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Jeff Trawick schrieb:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Paul Smedley
> <pauldespam@despamsmedley.id.au <ma...@despamsmedley.id.au>>
> wrote:
> Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2
> maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role.
>
>
> I hope you've noticed that the OS/2 MPM is gone from trunk ;)
hehe, the cat bites into its own tail :)
- APR is broken for OS/2
- he needs Subversion to fix it properly with us
- Subversion needs APR --> back to start :)
Gün.
Re: Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Paul Smedley <
pauldespam@despamsmedley.id.au> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:36:29 UTC, trawick@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > * The last OS/2-specific MPM change I can find was in 2003
> > (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=101826).
> >
> > Votes:
> >
> > [ ] yank BeOS MPM from trunk
> > [ ] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk
> >
> > (I'm +1 on both votes)
>
> Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2
> maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role.
I hope you've noticed that the OS/2 MPM is gone from trunk ;)
> I've been building Apache2 on OS/2 for the last 4 years or so, I just
> enver got around to submitting patches. If the support is pulled, it
> will make my life harder continuing to maintain the port.
All you need to get OS/2 working in trunk is version control *somewhere*,
and to check out the MPM itself on top of httpd trunk.
When patches are submitted to add OS/2 support back to the core, please take
the opportunity to help figure out the real meaning of the conditional logic
so that we don't continually maintain stuff like
#if WINDOWS || NETWARE || OS2 || xx.
(I anticipate that the Windows and NetWare maintainers will assist. No
worries here if these are tracked by a handful of new "characteristics,"
almost all of which are common between these three platforms ;) )
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Posted by Paul Smedley <pa...@despamsmedley.id.au>.
Hi Brian,
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:12:11 UTC, Brian Havard
<br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
> > Paul Smedley wrote:
> >
> >>> [ ] yank BeOS MPM from trunk
> >>> [ ] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk
> >>>
> >>> (I'm +1 on both votes)
> >>
> >> Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2
> >> maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role.
> >>
> >> I've been building Apache2 on OS/2 for the last 4 years or so, I just
> >> enver got around to submitting patches. If the support is pulled, it
> >> will make my life harder continuing to maintain the port.
> >
> > If you've been maintaining it independently to date, you could
> > presumably continue to do so on exactly the same basis if it
> > were pulled from the official release. So that's one option.
> >
> > I see you've posted a patch to dev@apr. I am, alas, not
> > competent to review it. If anyone on the APR and HTTPD
> > projects has OS2 and the time to review it, maybe this
> > could be a start to reviving OS2 support, and to your
> > working with the apache community.
>
> I know I've been absent for a long time but I once again have a bit of
> spare time so I can review, test & commit patches from Paul. Does anyone
> object if I start by bringing the OS/2 MPM back from the dead?
> Specifically, reversing r758899?
Just a comment regarding testing - I assume you only have an EMX
environment? I'm using klibc for all my stuff -
http://svn.netlabs.org/klibc
It would be good to ensure that I don't break anything for EMX :)
--
Cheers,
Paul.
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Brian Havard wrote:
> I know I've been absent for a long time but I once again have a bit of
> spare time so I can review, test & commit patches from Paul. Does anyone
> object if I start by bringing the OS/2 MPM back from the dead?
> Specifically, reversing r758899?
+1, go ahead.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Posted by Brian Havard <br...@gmail.com>.
Nick Kew wrote:
> Paul Smedley wrote:
>
>>> [ ] yank BeOS MPM from trunk
>>> [ ] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk
>>>
>>> (I'm +1 on both votes)
>>
>> Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2
>> maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role.
>>
>> I've been building Apache2 on OS/2 for the last 4 years or so, I just
>> enver got around to submitting patches. If the support is pulled, it
>> will make my life harder continuing to maintain the port.
>
> If you've been maintaining it independently to date, you could
> presumably continue to do so on exactly the same basis if it
> were pulled from the official release. So that's one option.
>
> I see you've posted a patch to dev@apr. I am, alas, not
> competent to review it. If anyone on the APR and HTTPD
> projects has OS2 and the time to review it, maybe this
> could be a start to reviving OS2 support, and to your
> working with the apache community.
I know I've been absent for a long time but I once again have a bit of
spare time so I can review, test & commit patches from Paul. Does anyone
object if I start by bringing the OS/2 MPM back from the dead?
Specifically, reversing r758899?
Re: criteria for axing MPMs from the tree
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
Paul Smedley wrote:
>> [ ] yank BeOS MPM from trunk
>> [ ] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk
>>
>> (I'm +1 on both votes)
>
> Sorry for the late response, but if there is no current OS/2
> maintainer for APR and httpd - I'm happy to take on that role.
>
> I've been building Apache2 on OS/2 for the last 4 years or so, I just
> enver got around to submitting patches. If the support is pulled, it
> will make my life harder continuing to maintain the port.
If you've been maintaining it independently to date, you could
presumably continue to do so on exactly the same basis if it
were pulled from the official release. So that's one option.
I see you've posted a patch to dev@apr. I am, alas, not
competent to review it. If anyone on the APR and HTTPD
projects has OS2 and the time to review it, maybe this
could be a start to reviving OS2 support, and to your
working with the apache community.
Why not start with a review of the options:
- maintain it at apache.org
- maintain it independently
and tell us what you think are the pros and cons of
moving from one to the other.
Oh, and do point us at your patches, in case anyone
is in a position to review them.
--
Nick Kew