You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com> on 2008/07/11 02:44:29 UTC
Should we release 2.10?
Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we roll this?
It's been a long time since the last stable release, I think we should
go ahead and get something out the door...
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Adam Prime wrote:
> My understanding of =over <num>, which seems to be confirmed by perldoc
> perlpod was that <num> is the indent level, so i'm not sure why you
> would want to bump it.
You sir are correct. Apparently back in the day I misread and learned
that wrongly.
Fixed in trunk and v2_10.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net
Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Adam Prime <ad...@utoronto.ca>.
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Adam Prime wrote:
>> Bojan Smojver wrote:
>>>> http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__xs__request.html
>>>>
>> Does the attached patch work?
> Committed revision 721096.
> Backported to branches/2_10 721099.
>
>
> you forgot to bump the =over value :)
>
My understanding of =over <num>, which seems to be confirmed by perldoc
perlpod was that <num> is the indent level, so i'm not sure why you
would want to bump it.
Maybe i'm misunderstanding what you meant though.
Adam
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 11:09 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Did that, but I still need to fix the failing tests before you
> bother...
>
> Maybe Saturday.
No rush.
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 01:40 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>
>> Committed revision 721096.
>> Backported to branches/2_10 721099.
>
> Let me know when you backport all the stuff you wanted to get from the
> trunk and I'll roll RC2.
Did that, but I still need to fix the failing tests before you bother...
Maybe Saturday.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net
Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 01:40 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Committed revision 721096.
> Backported to branches/2_10 721099.
Let me know when you backport all the stuff you wanted to get from the
trunk and I'll roll RC2.
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Adam Prime wrote:
> Bojan Smojver wrote:
>>> http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__xs__request.html
> Does the attached patch work?
Committed revision 721096.
Backported to branches/2_10 721099.
you forgot to bump the =over value :)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net
Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Adam Prime <ad...@utoronto.ca>.
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 09:10 -0500, Adam Prime wrote:
>
>> I was reminded of a documentation omission by an email on the mod_perl
>> list this morning. Can something be added into the porting warnings here:
>>
>> http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__xs__request.html
>>
>> mentioning that my @params = $r->param() no long returns a unique list
>> of the params. IE that ?a=b&a=c will return (a, a), not (a), which is
>> how it worked in libapreq1.
>>
>
> Sure. Do you have a patch?
>
>
Does the attached patch work?
Adam
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 09:10 -0500, Adam Prime wrote:
> I was reminded of a documentation omission by an email on the mod_perl
> list this morning. Can something be added into the porting warnings here:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__xs__request.html
>
> mentioning that my @params = $r->param() no long returns a unique list
> of the params. IE that ?a=b&a=c will return (a, a), not (a), which is
> how it worked in libapreq1.
Sure. Do you have a patch?
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Adam Prime <ad...@utoronto.ca>.
I was reminded of a documentation omission by an email on the mod_perl
list this morning. Can something be added into the porting warnings here:
http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__xs__request.html
mentioning that my @params = $r->param() no long returns a unique list
of the params. IE that ?a=b&a=c will return (a, a), not (a), which is
how it worked in libapreq1.
Adam
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:56 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Probably a good thing, I'm not sure what the differences are.
> [are all my solaris fixes on the 2_10 branch ?]
Here you go...
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>
>> Is that with
>> $ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1
>
> I actually did "make release_test", as per instructions on the release
> page.
>
Thats a convience target for when everything goes okay. Since it didn't
run the make test TEST_VERBOSE=1 by hand. (defined in Makefile.am)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net
Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Is that with
> $ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1
I actually did "make release_test", as per instructions on the release
page.
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 18:41 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> BTW, 2.08 and 2.09-rc2 fail exactly the same on my box. Something must
> be screwed in my setup...
Given that these failures are quite obviously not regressions, I'm
inclined to put an RC tarball out there for people to test.
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Fred Moyer <fr...@redhotpenguin.com>.
Yes, testers await.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Philip M. Gollucci
<pg...@p6m7g8.com> wrote:
> Bojan Smojver wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 23:08 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>>
>>> Apache-Test definitely jumps through hoops for SSL.
>>>
>>> Are your perl SSL CPANs up-to-date ?
>>
>> Whatever Fedora 9 has, I have. Whether that's most up to date, I don't
>> know.
>>
>> I think I should just put out an RC tarball and let people test. Then
>> we'll know what's going on.
>>
> go for it.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
> Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net
> Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com
> 1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
>
> Work like you don't need the money,
> love like you'll never get hurt,
> and dance like nobody's watching.
>
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 23:08 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>
>> Apache-Test definitely jumps through hoops for SSL.
>>
>> Are your perl SSL CPANs up-to-date ?
>
> Whatever Fedora 9 has, I have. Whether that's most up to date, I don't
> know.
>
> I think I should just put out an RC tarball and let people test. Then
> we'll know what's going on.
>
go for it.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net
Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 23:08 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Apache-Test definitely jumps through hoops for SSL.
>
> Are your perl SSL CPANs up-to-date ?
Whatever Fedora 9 has, I have. Whether that's most up to date, I don't
know.
I think I should just put out an RC tarball and let people test. Then
we'll know what's going on.
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 20:31 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>
>> This will require further debugging...
>
> After employing mod_dumpio, it seems that Apache actually outputs
> everything out, even over SSL. I have no idea how and why it doesn't
> show up in the client (i.e. as reported by request.t). Maybe something
> to do with the Perl test suite?
>
> Opinions?
>
Apache-Test definitely jumps through hoops for SSL.
Are your perl SSL CPANs up-to-date ?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net
Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 20:31 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> This will require further debugging...
After employing mod_dumpio, it seems that Apache actually outputs
everything out, even over SSL. I have no idea how and why it doesn't
show up in the client (i.e. as reported by request.t). Maybe something
to do with the Perl test suite?
Opinions?
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 10:36 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> We should find out what's going on with this before the release.
What I've discovered so far is that mod_apreq_output_filter_test.c gets
the correctly parsed content from apreq machinery and puts all that in
the brigade. But, upon ap_pass_brigade(f->next,bb) call, some of the
content is mysteriously dropped when the connection over SSL.
This will require further debugging...
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 09:38 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> These two tests fail when SSL is enabled.
Indeed, things get chopped off. I'm attaching an example from test 34.
The files 1.e and 1.r are expected/received content, respectively, that
the test sees over regular HTTP. The files 2.e and 2.r are the same over
HTTPS. You'll notice immediately that 2.r is significantly smaller than
2.e.
Similarly, in test 36 things get chopped off again.
We should find out what's going on with this before the release.
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 20:02 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> When I run the tests against vanilla httpd (instead of Fedora supplied
> one), the number of tests drops to 82 (as opposed to 121 with Fedora
> supplied httpd) and all those pass. So, there must be some functionality
> that I didn't compile into vanilla httpd that is screwing up the tests.
These two tests fail when SSL is enabled.
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 18:41 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> BTW, 2.08 and 2.09-rc2 fail exactly the same on my box. Something must
> be screwed in my setup...
When I run the tests against vanilla httpd (instead of Fedora supplied
one), the number of tests drops to 82 (as opposed to 121 with Fedora
supplied httpd) and all those pass. So, there must be some functionality
that I didn't compile into vanilla httpd that is screwing up the tests.
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Issac Goldstand <mm...@gmail.com>.
I want to finish with the 1.3 release and then I can try to take a look
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 15:54 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>> On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>>
>>> Is that with
>>> $ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1
>> Fails in exactly the same way as make release_test.
>
> BTW, 2.08 and 2.09-rc2 fail exactly the same on my box. Something must
> be screwed in my setup...
>
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 15:54 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>
> > Is that with
> > $ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1
>
> Fails in exactly the same way as make release_test.
BTW, 2.08 and 2.09-rc2 fail exactly the same on my box. Something must
be screwed in my setup...
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Is that with
> $ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1
Fails in exactly the same way as make release_test.
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:02 +0200, Issac Goldstand wrote:
> I'm gonna play with my version too. I'll shout if I get something
> working (and you do the same?)
OK.
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:56 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>
>> [are all my solaris fixes on the 2_10 branch ?]
>
> Not sure. What should I be looking for?
I'm compiling things now, I'll take a look in few.
Is that with
$ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1
>
> BTW, I'm getting test failures:
> ---------------------------------
> t/request........NOK 34/36# Failed test 34 in t/request.t at line 93
> fail #2
> # Failed test 36 in t/request.t at line 118 fail #2
> t/request........FAILED tests 34,
> 36
> Failed 2/36 tests, 94.44% okay
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net
Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:56 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> [are all my solaris fixes on the 2_10 branch ?]
Not sure. What should I be looking for?
BTW, I'm getting test failures:
---------------------------------
t/request........NOK 34/36# Failed test 34 in t/request.t at line 93
fail #2
# Failed test 36 in t/request.t at line 118 fail #2
t/request........FAILED tests 34,
36
Failed 2/36 tests, 94.44% okay
---------------------------------
This is the code:
---------------------------------
ok t_cmp(filter_content POST_BODY("/index.html?test=16", content =>
"post+data=foo;more=$filler;test=output+filter+POST"),
<<EOT,
ARGS:
\ttest => 16
BODY:
\tpost data => foo
\tmore => $filler
\ttest => output filter POST
EOT
"output filter POST");
---------------------------------
and
---------------------------------
ok t_cmp($body, $index_html . <<EOT, "redirect /index.txt (POST)");
--APREQ OUTPUT FILTER--
ARGS:
\tfoo => quux
BODY:
\tquux => $filler
\tlocation => /index.html?foo=quux
\tfoo => $filler
EOT
---------------------------------
Any ideas?
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:52 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>
>> If I can help with the 2.10 let me know, I was probably the last one to
>> muck with it for 2.08 and 2.09.
>
> OK, I'll holler if I get stuck. BTW, I will not be merging anything into
> the branch, but roll it as is.
>
Probably a good thing, I'm not sure what the differences are.
[are all my solaris fixes on the 2_10 branch ?]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net
Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:52 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> If I can help with the 2.10 let me know, I was probably the last one to
> muck with it for 2.08 and 2.09.
OK, I'll holler if I get stuck. BTW, I will not be merging anything into
the branch, but roll it as is.
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:45 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>
>> did you see the dev@perl.a.o post ?
>
> No, not really. I don't normally follow that list, as my Perl really,
> really sucks (did I mention my Perl really sucks? ;-)).
>
>> If you want to volunteer RM for one of them, I'll take the other.
>
> I use 2.x, so I can volunteer for that.
>
Have at it, libapreq 1.34 I believe is ready for RC[34] I'll attemtp to
roll that nowish.
If I can help with the 2.10 let me know, I was probably the last one to
muck with it for 2.08 and 2.09.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net
Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:45 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> did you see the dev@perl.a.o post ?
No, not really. I don't normally follow that list, as my Perl really,
really sucks (did I mention my Perl really sucks? ;-)).
> If you want to volunteer RM for one of them, I'll take the other.
I use 2.x, so I can volunteer for that.
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 10:44 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>> Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we roll this?
>> It's been a long time since the last stable release, I think we should
>> go ahead and get something out the door...
>
> Just another ping on this.
>
> There was talk of merging new features before the release and of people
> accessing apreq via Perl seeing segfaults. Anyone has an opinion on
> this?
>
> PS. These are not things that I use.
>
did you see the dev@perl.a.o post ?
I'd like to pick this up again.
_STRONG_ +1 to release 1.34 and 2.10
If you want to volunteer RM for one of them, I'll take the other.
I've got some time between now and thanks giving.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net
Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 10:44 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we roll this?
> It's been a long time since the last stable release, I think we should
> go ahead and get something out the door...
Just another ping on this.
There was talk of merging new features before the release and of people
accessing apreq via Perl seeing segfaults. Anyone has an opinion on
this?
PS. These are not things that I use.
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Adam Prime <ds...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Adam Prime <ds...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently i suck at actually sending mail to the list. I blame gmail.
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Adam Prime <ds...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Given it's a request to the whole development group, could you resend to
>>> the list so that other developer see it too?
>>>
>>> It would also be useful to have a backtrace from GDB when this happens.
>>
>> If someone can point my to instructions on how to generate a
>> backtrace, i'll do what i can. It's not something i have any
>> experience with though.
>>
>> I've fiddled with this a little further. If you take the following handler:
>>
>> package Kabob::Seg;
>>
>> use Apache2::Request;
>>
>> sub handler {
>> my $req = Apache2::Request->new($r);
>> $r->content_type('text/plain');
>>
>> $r->print('hi');
>>
>> return Apache2::Const::OK;
>> }
>>
>> 1;
>>
>> and run it under SetHandler perl-script, it will segfault. If you run
>> it under SetHandler modperl, then you get this in your error_log (and
>> a 500):
>>
>> [Mon Jul 14 00:28:37 2008] [error] [client 127.0.0.1] Apache2->handle
>> called without setting Apache2->request! at
>> /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux/Apache2/Request.pm line
>> 15.\n
>>
>> I have no idea what the difference is.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>
theoretically, this is a backtrace from this.
(gdb) set args -f /www/conf/httpd.conf -DBackEnd -X
(gdb) r
Starting program: /usr/local/prefork/bin/httpd -f /www/conf/httpd.conf
-DBackEnd -X
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x00002b1e9b043ee7 in XS_APR__Request__Apache2_handle ()
from /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux/auto/APR/Request/Apache2/Apache2.so
(gdb) bt
#0 0x00002b1e9b043ee7 in XS_APR__Request__Apache2_handle ()
from /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux/auto/APR/Request/Apache2/Apache2.so
#1 0x00002b1e98ef3ac9 in Perl_pp_entersub () from /usr/lib/libperl.so.1
#2 0x00002b1e98ef226a in Perl_runops_standard () from /usr/lib/libperl.so.1
#3 0x00002b1e98ea2367 in Perl_call_sv () from /usr/lib/libperl.so.1
#4 0x00002b1e98c32710 in modperl_callback () from
/usr/local/prefork/modules/mod_perl.so
#5 0x00002b1e98c32c5d in modperl_callback_run_handlers () from
/usr/local/prefork/modules/mod_perl.so
#6 0x00002b1e98c3300f in modperl_callback_per_dir () from
/usr/local/prefork/modules/mod_perl.so
#7 0x00002b1e98c2f0f0 in modperl_response_handler_run () from
/usr/local/prefork/modules/mod_perl.so
#8 0x00002b1e98c2f26e in modperl_response_handler_cgi () from
/usr/local/prefork/modules/mod_perl.so
#9 0x0000000000437af9 in ap_run_handler (r=0x853788) at config.c:157
#10 0x000000000043abdc in ap_invoke_handler (r=0x853788) at config.c:372
#11 0x000000000044fc38 in ap_process_request (r=0x853788) at http_request.c:258
#12 0x000000000044d0dc in ap_process_http_connection (c=0x84f958) at
http_core.c:190
#13 0x000000000043e791 in ap_run_process_connection (c=0x84f958) at
connection.c:43
#14 0x0000000000461801 in child_main (child_num_arg=<value optimized
out>) at prefork.c:640
#15 0x00000000004619e8 in make_child (s=0x69d150, slot=0) at prefork.c:680
#16 0x0000000000462478 in ap_mpm_run (_pconf=<value optimized out>,
plog=<value optimized out>,
s=0x69d150) at prefork.c:956
#17 0x0000000000425a37 in main (argc=5, argv=0x7fff1363a5d8) at main.c:730
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Adam Prime <ds...@gmail.com>.
Apparently i suck at actually sending mail to the list. I blame gmail.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Adam Prime <ds...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com> wrote:
>>
>> Given it's a request to the whole development group, could you resend to
>> the list so that other developer see it too?
>>
>> It would also be useful to have a backtrace from GDB when this happens.
>
> If someone can point my to instructions on how to generate a
> backtrace, i'll do what i can. It's not something i have any
> experience with though.
>
> I've fiddled with this a little further. If you take the following handler:
>
> package Kabob::Seg;
>
> use Apache2::Request;
>
> sub handler {
> my $req = Apache2::Request->new($r);
> $r->content_type('text/plain');
>
> $r->print('hi');
>
> return Apache2::Const::OK;
> }
>
> 1;
>
> and run it under SetHandler perl-script, it will segfault. If you run
> it under SetHandler modperl, then you get this in your error_log (and
> a 500):
>
> [Mon Jul 14 00:28:37 2008] [error] [client 127.0.0.1] Apache2->handle
> called without setting Apache2->request! at
> /usr/lib64/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux/Apache2/Request.pm line
> 15.\n
>
> I have no idea what the difference is.
>
> Adam
>
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>
> --- On Thu, 7/10/08, Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we
>> roll this?
>> It's been a long time since the last stable release, I
>> think we should
>> go ahead and get something out the door...
>
> Sounds good. AIUI Issac was going to RM but had difficulty getting
> the docs to generate. Are you willing to give it a shot?
I was actually waiting on Issac as well. We need to do 1.34 too.
Anyone tested perl 5.10 ?
I can jump on it next week, I think, if neither Bojan or Isaac prefer to
do it.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (philip@ridecharge.com)
o:703.549.2050x206
Senior System Admin - Riderway, Inc.
http://riderway.com / http://ridecharge.com
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Dave Viner <da...@pobox.com>.
what is required to run the perl test?
thanks
dave viner
On Jul 11, 2008, at 12:54 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 18:09 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Are you willing to give it a shot?
>
> I can give it a try, but I have to warn that my Perl skills are
> non-existent. How much of that is involved in the release?
>
> --
> Bojan
>
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 18:09 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Are you willing to give it a shot?
I can give it a try, but I have to warn that my Perl skills are
non-existent. How much of that is involved in the release?
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Eli Marmor <ma...@netmask.it>.
Bojan Smojver wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 18:46 +0300, Eli Marmor wrote:
>
> > DON'T FORGET TO MERGE THE ENHANCED-CGI !!!
>
> Do you have a link?
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/apreq/branches/enhanced-cgi/
--
Eli Marmor
marmor@netmask.it
CEO, Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd.
__________________________________________________________
Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St.
Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004
Mobile: +972-50-5237338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 18:46 +0300, Eli Marmor wrote:
> DON'T FORGET TO MERGE THE ENHANCED-CGI !!!
Do you have a link?
--
Bojan
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Eli Marmor wrote:
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> --- On Thu, 7/10/08, Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we
>>> roll this?
>>> It's been a long time since the last stable release, I
>>> think we should
>>> go ahead and get something out the door...
>> Sounds good. AIUI Issac was going to RM but had difficulty getting
>> the docs to generate. Are you willing to give it a shot?
>
> [Sorry for the shouting letters:]
>
> DON'T FORGET TO MERGE THE ENHANCED-CGI !!!
>
> [Sorry also if it was already done...]
>
AFAIK, it was not. I'm out of town this weekend, but I'll give it a
look monday.
joes, I seem to remember something about and API issue with that ?
At the least, I can post a diff for review.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (philip@ridecharge.com)
o:703.549.2050x206
Senior System Admin - Riderway, Inc.
http://riderway.com / http://ridecharge.com
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Eli Marmor <ma...@netmask.it>.
Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> --- On Thu, 7/10/08, Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com> wrote:
>
> > Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we
> > roll this?
> > It's been a long time since the last stable release, I
> > think we should
> > go ahead and get something out the door...
>
> Sounds good. AIUI Issac was going to RM but had difficulty getting
> the docs to generate. Are you willing to give it a shot?
[Sorry for the shouting letters:]
DON'T FORGET TO MERGE THE ENHANCED-CGI !!!
[Sorry also if it was already done...]
--
Eli Marmor
marmor@netmask.it
CEO, Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd.
__________________________________________________________
Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St.
Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004
Mobile: +972-50-5237338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
--- On Thu, 7/10/08, Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com> wrote:
> Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we
> roll this?
> It's been a long time since the last stable release, I
> think we should
> go ahead and get something out the door...
Sounds good. AIUI Issac was going to RM but had difficulty getting
the docs to generate. Are you willing to give it a shot?