You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> on 2004/06/29 02:27:06 UTC

2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Hi,

The 2.0.50 tarballs are up and available for testing at:

  http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/

Please test and cast your votes for release.


Sander

Re: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 02:27 +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> Please test and cast your votes for release.

Good On FreeBSD 5.2.1


Re: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Sander Striker wrote:

> The 2.0.50 tarballs are up and available for testing at:
> 
>   http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
> 
> Please test and cast your votes for release.

The update to apr_strings.c after rc2 isn't correct AFAICT (apr_snprintf() 
doesn't return negative).  I don't see that it hurts, as the sprintf() and the 
apr_snprintf(,5,) are going to succeed or fail in the same conditions.

So I'm just a little nervous about that but still +1 for release.


Re: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Sander Temme <sa...@temme.net>.
On Jun 28, 2004, at 5:27 PM, Sander Striker wrote:

> Please test and cast your votes for release.

Darwin 7.4 (MacOSX 10.3.4), prefork, the test suite gives me minor  
barfage which I think is more on the test side than on the httpd side:

Failed Test              Stat Wstat Total Fail  Failed  List of Failed
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-------
t/apache/contentlength.t               20    2  10.00%  2 4
t/protocol/echo.t         255 65280     8   16 200.00%  1-8
t/protocol/nntp-like.t    255 65280    10   20 200.00%  1-10
  (1 subtest UNEXPECTEDLY SUCCEEDED), 2 tests and 4 subtests skipped.
Failed 3/52 test scripts, 94.23% okay. 20/2685 subtests failed, 99.26%  
okay.

I'd be +1 for release.

S.

-- 
sander@temme.net              http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4  B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF

Re: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Chip Cuccio <ch...@norlug.org>.
* Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>
  |__ Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 02:27:06AM +0200:
> 
> Please test and cast your votes for release.

Builds and works very well on;

    - Red Hat Linux 7.2, 7.3, 8.0, & 9.0
    - Fedora Core Linux 1, & 2
    - Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1, & 3.0
    - Slackware Linux 8.1, 9.0, 9.1, & 10.0)

Thanks...

-- 
Chip Cuccio                    |  <ch...@norlug.org>
NORLUG SysAdmin & Webmaster    |  <http://norlug.org/~chipster/>
Northfield Linux Users' Group  |  Northfield, Minnesota USA


Re: 2.0.50 RPM Specfile testing - was: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Chip Cuccio <ch...@norlug.org>.
* Chip Cuccio <ch...@norlug.org>
  |__ Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 10:43:11PM -0500:
> 
> Indeed it did. Applied diff, and am building on arbitrary RH 7.3 and 9.0
> rpm buildhosts as I type this. Shall I send the resulting build-logs to the
> list, or just you? I usually ask permission to send attachments to a list.

Diff worked like a charm. Built RPMs successfully on;

    - Red Hat 7.3, 9.0
    - Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0
    - Fedora Core 2

I have a bz2ball with the build-logs. Ping me if you would like them.
Thanks...

-- 
Chip Cuccio                    |  <ch...@norlug.org>
NORLUG SysAdmin & Webmaster    |  <http://norlug.org/~chipster/>
Northfield Linux Users' Group  |  Northfield, Minnesota USA


2.0.50 RPM Specfile testing - was: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Chip Cuccio <ch...@norlug.org>.
* Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>
  |__ Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 04:45:19AM +0200:
> 
> The diff is attached - give it a try, tell me if it works. You need to 
> run ./buildconf to generate the httpd.spec from build/rpm/httpd.spec.in, 
> then tar up the archive and run and an RPM should result.

Got it. Thanks...

> Right now if you try to build an rpm, it complains about unpackaged files.

Indeed it did. Applied diff, and am building on arbitrary RH 7.3 and 9.0
rpm buildhosts as I type this. Shall I send the resulting build-logs to the
list, or just you? I usually ask permission to send attachments to a list.

Thanks.

-- 
Chip Cuccio                    |  <ch...@norlug.org>
NORLUG SysAdmin & Webmaster    |  <http://norlug.org/~chipster/>
Northfield Linux Users' Group  |  Northfield, Minnesota USA


Re: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Chip Cuccio wrote:

> Ahhh - thanks ;-)
> 
> Shall I take a crack at it? How can we test the resultant spec?

The diff is attached - give it a try, tell me if it works. You need to 
run ./buildconf to generate the httpd.spec from build/rpm/httpd.spec.in, 
then tar up the archive and run

rpmbuild --rebuild httpd-2.0.50.tar.gz

and an RPM should result. Right now if you try to build an rpm, it 
complains about unpackaged files.

Regards,
Graham
--

Re: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Chip Cuccio <ch...@norlug.org>.
* Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>
  |__ Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 04:36:33AM +0200:
> 
> No, I am referring to the spec file included in httpd v2.0.50, which is 
> currently broken.

Ahhh - thanks ;-)

Shall I take a crack at it? How can we test the resultant spec?

Take care....
-- 
Chip Cuccio                    |  <ch...@norlug.org>
NORLUG SysAdmin & Webmaster    |  <http://norlug.org/~chipster/>
Northfield Linux Users' Group  |  Northfield, Minnesota USA


Re: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Ian Holsman wrote:

> your welcome.

Thank you kind sir :)

Regards,
Graham
--

Re: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Ian Holsman <Ia...@apache.org>.
Graham Leggett wrote:
> Joe Orton wrote:

> The vote is in STATUS, the patch has been shown to work independantly by 
> one of the testers, could someone please add the last +1 so I can commit 
> this trivial fix.
> 
> Pretty please?
> 

your welcome.
Regards
Ian.

> Regards,
> Graham
> -- 
> 


Re: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Joe Orton wrote:

> If it just fails due to the "unpackaged files" check that's hardly a
> showstopper, just do:
> 
> echo "%_unpackaged_files_terminate_build 0" >> ~/.rpmmacros

You're asking end users to issue an arcane command to work around a bug 
in the Apache supplied specfile. The real fix is to fix the RPM specfile.

The vote is in STATUS, the patch has been shown to work independantly by 
one of the testers, could someone please add the last +1 so I can commit 
this trivial fix.

Pretty please?

Regards,
Graham
--


Re: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 04:36:33AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Chip Cuccio wrote:
> 
> >>The trivial fix to make the above file build as an RPM is still 
> >>outstanding, and requires one more +1 to apply it.
> 
> >I built RPMs with no issues for Fedora and RH 7.2 - 9.0.
> >Are you referring to the libpcre hack?
> 
> No, I am referring to the spec file included in httpd v2.0.50, which is 
> currently broken.

If it just fails due to the "unpackaged files" check that's hardly a
showstopper, just do:

echo "%_unpackaged_files_terminate_build 0" >> ~/.rpmmacros

joe


Re: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Chip Cuccio wrote:

>>The trivial fix to make the above file build as an RPM is still 
>>outstanding, and requires one more +1 to apply it.

> I built RPMs with no issues for Fedora and RH 7.2 - 9.0.
> Are you referring to the libpcre hack?

No, I am referring to the spec file included in httpd v2.0.50, which is 
currently broken.

Regards,
Graham
--

Re: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Chip Cuccio <ch...@norlug.org>.
* Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>
  |__ Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 04:17:01AM +0200:
> 
> Sander Striker wrote:
> 
> >The 2.0.50 tarballs are up and available for testing at:
> >
> >  http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
> >
> >Please test and cast your votes for release.
> 
> The trivial fix to make the above file build as an RPM is still 
> outstanding, and requires one more +1 to apply it.

I built RPMs with no issues for Fedora and RH 7.2 - 9.0.
Are you referring to the libpcre hack?

-- 
Chip Cuccio                    |  <ch...@norlug.org>
NORLUG SysAdmin & Webmaster    |  <http://norlug.org/~chipster/>
Northfield Linux Users' Group  |  Northfield, Minnesota USA


Re: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Sander Striker wrote:

> The 2.0.50 tarballs are up and available for testing at:
> 
>   http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
> 
> Please test and cast your votes for release.

The trivial fix to make the above file build as an RPM is still 
outstanding, and requires one more +1 to apply it.

Any takers?

Regards,
Graham
--


Moved the tarballs, WAS: Re: 2.0.50 tarballs available for testing

Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 02:27, Sander Striker wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The 2.0.50 tarballs are up and available for testing at:
> 
>   http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/

Given the number of +1s I felt comfortable to move these.
The tarballs are now up at http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/,
so the mirrors can start catching up.

> Please test and cast your votes for release.

Thank you all for testing and voting!

Sander