You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2009/09/09 01:48:58 UTC
[VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
mod_fcgid freinds;
Please fetch up the newly minted mod_fcgid-2.3.1.tar.gz (or bz2)
or the win32 suitable package mod_fcgid-2.3.1-crlf.zip from:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_fcgid/
review, take it for a spin, and cast your choice
[ ] -1 for any release of 2.3.1 (regressed from 2.3.0?)
[ ] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
[ ] +1 to release as 2.3.1-GA
The most major change was handling modern win32 apr calls, and filling
in the basic pathing variables by platform to help launch the cgid
process in the first place.
Note no configuration updates occur yet on make install. Not sure what our
'example' aught to look like, yet. Note no documentation was donated, so
there is a reference to all of the directives taken from the cmd_rec array,
but this needs attention from fans to fill in the text and correct a few
more typos.
For getting started,
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/mod_fcgid/tags/2.3.1/README-FCGID
Bill
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Some people seem to indicate, that the implementation of pgp is safer,
> on the other hand md5sum etc. have a builtin check option (-c), so you
> can run them directly against the checksum file to compares the checksum
> in the checksum file with a freshly computed checksum of the base file.
> This seems handy to me. It looks like gpg is not able to do that, i.e.
> you have to compare the sums by staring at them. Of course with gpg you
> can check using the signature file.
That is frustrating. I wish we didn't illustrate it in our release.sh
scripts :( But a SHA1 or MD5 or whatever result is a specific value, the
"Safety" argument is complete drivel (and I didn't complete it, either).
I regenerated all the mod_fcgid .md5/sha1 artifacts and then verified they
had not changed. This was necessary anyways due to the -beta rename, and
I'll be doing the same for mod_ftp if we get that far.
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 10.09.2009 03:51, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Rainer Jung wrote:
>>> Signing good, hash files are in a format at least my md5sum and sha1sum
>>> do not understand how to check.
>>
>> Can anyone point out what I'm doing wrong with 'gpg --print-md md5'? Am I
>> missing some magic flag, or is the idea of using gpg to create hashes simply
>> broken?
>
> FYI;
>
> $ gpg --version
> gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.9
>
> ... in case that is significant.
It seems there's no fix for this. gpg and md5sum/sha1sum are not
compatible in their format (though obviously they produce the same
checksum).
Some people seem to indicate, that the implementation of pgp is safer,
on the other hand md5sum etc. have a builtin check option (-c), so you
can run them directly against the checksum file to compares the checksum
in the checksum file with a freshly computed checksum of the base file.
This seems handy to me. It looks like gpg is not able to do that, i.e.
you have to compare the sums by staring at them. Of course with gpg you
can check using the signature file.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Rainer Jung wrote:
>> Signing good, hash files are in a format at least my md5sum and sha1sum
>> do not understand how to check.
>
> Can anyone point out what I'm doing wrong with 'gpg --print-md md5'? Am I
> missing some magic flag, or is the idea of using gpg to create hashes simply
> broken?
FYI;
$ gpg --version
gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.9
... in case that is significant.
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Signing good, hash files are in a format at least my md5sum and sha1sum
> do not understand how to check.
Can anyone point out what I'm doing wrong with 'gpg --print-md md5'? Am I
missing some magic flag, or is the idea of using gpg to create hashes simply
broken?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: testers-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: testers-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> I think it's still beta, because the docs are not enough to get one
> started. Especially the description for FCGIWrapper is strange:
Well, all the docs are strange ;-) Any volunteers?
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk/docs/manual/mod/
> - I wasn't able to use it without the optional (?) second param:
>
> In file fcgid_conf.c:
>
> 762 const char *set_wrapper_config(cmd_parms * cmd, void *dirconfig,
> 763 const char *wrapperpath,
> 764 const char *extension)
> 765 {
> ...
> 775 /* Sanity check */
> 776 if (wrapperpath == NULL || extension == NULL
> -----------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 777 || *extension != '.' || *(extension + 1) == '\0'
> 778 ...
> 779 return "Invalid wrapper file extension";
>
> although it is declared as
>
> AP_INIT_TAKE12("FCGIWrapper", set_wrapper_config, NULL,
> RSRC_CONF | ACCESS_CONF | OR_FILEINFO,
> "The CGI wrapper setting"),
>
> - the needed "extension" is completely undocumented
>
> - the path of wrapperpath is not resolved relative to the server root
FWIW at httpd committers, feel free to fix. If svn permissions aren't set
up correctly, I'm happy to fix. But I would hate to see some territorial
boundaries (real or perceived) interfere with fixing httpd code, whether
it's in the main trunk or off on a module subproject.
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Signing good, hash files are in a format at least my md5sum and sha1sum
> do not understand how to check.
Can anyone point out what I'm doing wrong with 'gpg --print-md md5'? Am I
missing some magic flag, or is the idea of using gpg to create hashes simply
broken?
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 09.09.2009 01:48, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> mod_fcgid freinds;
>
> Please fetch up the newly minted mod_fcgid-2.3.1.tar.gz (or bz2)
> or the win32 suitable package mod_fcgid-2.3.1-crlf.zip from:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_fcgid/
>
> review, take it for a spin, and cast your choice
>
> [ ] -1 for any release of 2.3.1 (regressed from 2.3.0?)
> [X] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
> [ ] +1 to release as 2.3.1-GA
> Note no configuration updates occur yet on make install. Not sure what our
> 'example' aught to look like, yet. Note no documentation was donated, so
> there is a reference to all of the directives taken from the cmd_rec array,
> but this needs attention from fans to fill in the text and correct a few
> more typos.
Tested against httpd 2.2.x on Solaris 8.
Signing good, hash files are in a format at least my md5sum and sha1sum
do not understand how to check.
configure runs fine.
Some minor warnings during make (all Solaris-specific):
fcgid_proctbl_unix.c:261: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but
argument 7 has type 'pid_t'
fcgid_proctbl_unix.c:268: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but
argument 7 has type 'pid_t'
fcgid_proctbl_unix.c:280: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but
argument 7 has type 'pid_t'
fcgid_pm_unix.c:239: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but
argument 7 has type 'pid_t'
fcgid_pm_unix.c:268: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but
argument 7 has type 'pid_t'
fcgid_proc_unix.c:229: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but
argument 5 has type 'pid_t'
fcgid_proc_unix.c:865: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but
argument 8 has type 'pid_t'
Tested with a simple echo server using ab and a few thousand requests.
Looks reliable.
I think it's still beta, because the docs are not enough to get one
started. Especially the description for FCGIWrapper is strange:
- I wasn't able to use it without the optional (?) second param:
In file fcgid_conf.c:
762 const char *set_wrapper_config(cmd_parms * cmd, void *dirconfig,
763 const char *wrapperpath,
764 const char *extension)
765 {
...
775 /* Sanity check */
776 if (wrapperpath == NULL || extension == NULL
-----------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
777 || *extension != '.' || *(extension + 1) == '\0'
778 ...
779 return "Invalid wrapper file extension";
although it is declared as
AP_INIT_TAKE12("FCGIWrapper", set_wrapper_config, NULL,
RSRC_CONF | ACCESS_CONF | OR_FILEINFO,
"The CGI wrapper setting"),
- the needed "extension" is completely undocumented
- the path of wrapperpath is not resolved relative to the server root
Regards,
Rainer
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 09.09.2009 01:48, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> mod_fcgid freinds;
>
> Please fetch up the newly minted mod_fcgid-2.3.1.tar.gz (or bz2)
> or the win32 suitable package mod_fcgid-2.3.1-crlf.zip from:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_fcgid/
>
> review, take it for a spin, and cast your choice
>
> [ ] -1 for any release of 2.3.1 (regressed from 2.3.0?)
> [X] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
> [ ] +1 to release as 2.3.1-GA
> Note no configuration updates occur yet on make install. Not sure what our
> 'example' aught to look like, yet. Note no documentation was donated, so
> there is a reference to all of the directives taken from the cmd_rec array,
> but this needs attention from fans to fill in the text and correct a few
> more typos.
Tested against httpd 2.2.x on Solaris 8.
Signing good, hash files are in a format at least my md5sum and sha1sum
do not understand how to check.
configure runs fine.
Some minor warnings during make (all Solaris-specific):
fcgid_proctbl_unix.c:261: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but
argument 7 has type 'pid_t'
fcgid_proctbl_unix.c:268: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but
argument 7 has type 'pid_t'
fcgid_proctbl_unix.c:280: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but
argument 7 has type 'pid_t'
fcgid_pm_unix.c:239: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but
argument 7 has type 'pid_t'
fcgid_pm_unix.c:268: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but
argument 7 has type 'pid_t'
fcgid_proc_unix.c:229: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but
argument 5 has type 'pid_t'
fcgid_proc_unix.c:865: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but
argument 8 has type 'pid_t'
Tested with a simple echo server using ab and a few thousand requests.
Looks reliable.
I think it's still beta, because the docs are not enough to get one
started. Especially the description for FCGIWrapper is strange:
- I wasn't able to use it without the optional (?) second param:
In file fcgid_conf.c:
762 const char *set_wrapper_config(cmd_parms * cmd, void *dirconfig,
763 const char *wrapperpath,
764 const char *extension)
765 {
...
775 /* Sanity check */
776 if (wrapperpath == NULL || extension == NULL
-----------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
777 || *extension != '.' || *(extension + 1) == '\0'
778 ...
779 return "Invalid wrapper file extension";
although it is declared as
AP_INIT_TAKE12("FCGIWrapper", set_wrapper_config, NULL,
RSRC_CONF | ACCESS_CONF | OR_FILEINFO,
"The CGI wrapper setting"),
- the needed "extension" is completely undocumented
- the path of wrapperpath is not resolved relative to the server root
Regards,
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: testers-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: testers-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Chris Darroch wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Chris Darroch wrote:
>>>
>>> [X] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
>>>
>>> Gave it a quick compile and test run -- no heavy testing but it
>>> handles a pre-2.3 script fine, at least. So I'd vote we get a beta
>>> out there and encourage others to take a look. Thanks again,
>>
>> Thanks Chris, I saw your positive comments earlier, but they weren't
>> clearly a vote.
>>
>> httpd PMC folk, Jeff and I still need one more vote to ratify this
>> release.
>
> My vote might count for that, actually ... I believe I'm on
> the PMC these days, since about February. (But if not, my oops ...
> smackdown! :-)
I scrolled back to May... PMC Chair EFAIL ;-)
Yup, we have the votes to release. I'll give it the full seven days,
so others can toss down votes for the next 18 hours, if anyone else
cares to chime in.
Bill
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Chris Darroch <ch...@pearsoncmg.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Chris Darroch wrote:
>>
>> [X] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
>>
>> Gave it a quick compile and test run -- no heavy testing but it
>> handles a pre-2.3 script fine, at least. So I'd vote we get a beta
>> out there and encourage others to take a look. Thanks again,
>
> Thanks Chris, I saw your positive comments earlier, but they weren't
> clearly a vote.
>
> httpd PMC folk, Jeff and I still need one more vote to ratify this release.
My vote might count for that, actually ... I believe I'm on
the PMC these days, since about February. (But if not, my oops ...
smackdown! :-)
Chris.
--
GPG Key ID: 366A375B
GPG Key Fingerprint: 485E 5041 17E1 E2BB C263 E4DE C8E3 FA36 366A 375B
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Chris Darroch wrote:
>
> [X] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
>
> Gave it a quick compile and test run -- no heavy testing but it
> handles a pre-2.3 script fine, at least. So I'd vote we get a beta
> out there and encourage others to take a look. Thanks again,
Thanks Chris, I saw your positive comments earlier, but they weren't
clearly a vote.
httpd PMC folk, Jeff and I still need one more vote to ratify this release.
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Chris Darroch <ch...@pearsoncmg.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Please fetch up the newly minted mod_fcgid-2.3.1.tar.gz (or bz2)
> or the win32 suitable package mod_fcgid-2.3.1-crlf.zip from:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_fcgid/
>
> review, take it for a spin, and cast your choice
[X] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
Gave it a quick compile and test run -- no heavy testing but it
handles a pre-2.3 script fine, at least. So I'd vote we get a beta
out there and encourage others to take a look. Thanks again,
Chris.
--
GPG Key ID: 366A375B
GPG Key Fingerprint: 485E 5041 17E1 E2BB C263 E4DE C8E3 FA36 366A 375B
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by "Gregg L. Smith" <li...@glewis.com>.
From the Windows Peanut Gallery,
> [ ] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
> [X] +1 to release as 2.3.1-GA
>
Builds great (good Win32 build instructions), module loads quietly,
works wonderfully with existing config and shaves an average of two
seconds off a simple and straightforward "chew on this for awhile"
benchmark script I have.
> The most major change was handling modern win32 apr calls, and filling
> in the basic pathing variables by platform to help launch the cgid
> process in the first place.
>
I'd prefer GA over beta .. for Win32 anyway, most of this is tested
plenty already depending on the difference in how APR 1.3.x is handled
from the "unofficial" mod_fcgid patches for this out there that we've
been using since 2.2.9, which is quite stable.
Regards,
Gregg
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org>.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:22 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
>>
>> How soon do we want another tarball with the whole flurry of fixes
>> committed to mod_fcgid already?
>>
>> I'd like to see another beta within the week, and a GA within the
>> month. (This could easily drag on forever.)
>
> Yup, let's do at least every other week tags for a little while here, as
> long as there is activity. I'll even tag it tomorrow if folks are ready?
> Otherwise I'm fine with postponing to next week.
>
> Bill
>
> (About <Status> I'll look at what's going on here, but I'd be mostly
> curious if your build/ subdirectory is up to date?)
>
BTW, we are now running mod_fcgid trunk in production for www.apache.org.
wiki.apache.org (MoinMoin powered) is now running in FastCGI mode, via
mod_fcgid.
I also hacked up all of the download,cgi/mirror.cgi scripts, so they
are running via fastcgi too ( <http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi>,
<http://www.apache.org/dyn/mirrors/mirrors.cgi>, etc)
eating the dogfood quite well right now... :)
-Paul
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
>
> How soon do we want another tarball with the whole flurry of fixes
> committed to mod_fcgid already?
>
> I'd like to see another beta within the week, and a GA within the
> month. (This could easily drag on forever.)
Yup, let's do at least every other week tags for a little while here, as
long as there is activity. I'll even tag it tomorrow if folks are ready?
Otherwise I'm fine with postponing to next week.
Bill
(About <Status> I'll look at what's going on here, but I'd be mostly
curious if your build/ subdirectory is up to date?)
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >> [ ] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
> >
> > With +1's recorded from chrisd, trawick and wrowe, the package is
> > released as-beta (due principally to the more experimental auth issues
> > and terse documentation).
>
and new build system and new cooks in the kitchen and ...
I don't think the auth issues are that important w.r.t. GA. They were
experimental before and still are. I'm more concerned myself with finishing
any configuration fixes (like the server conf changes) that might change the
behavior of some existing configurations.
Doc certainly is important.
> And this is done.
>
> > At 2pm EDT we can go ahead and sync the entire site, but I won't be at
> > the office for an hour or so after that, so if anyone beats me to it,
> > terrific :)
>
> There were several false starts, stalled synchronization, config issues
> etc,
> but I believe
>
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/mod_fcgid/
>
> is looking fine. /download and /modules should also be good now. But
> if someone else wants to follow up just to catch any typos, that would
> be great.
>
It looks good.
(If I understood why my build of the html reference page doesn't fill in
Status:, I could help keep that up to date ;) )
> It's great to see this released at last! I will get mod_ftp and mod_fcgid
> binaries for win32 up on the site this weekend, as well (ftp's as I roll
> the new 0.9.6 attempt).
>
> How soon do we want another tarball with the whole flurry of fixes
> committed to mod_fcgid already?
>
I'd like to see another beta within the week, and a GA within the month.
(This could easily drag on forever.)
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> [ ] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
>
> With +1's recorded from chrisd, trawick and wrowe, the package is
> released as-beta (due principally to the more experimental auth issues
> and terse documentation).
And this is done.
> At 2pm EDT we can go ahead and sync the entire site, but I won't be at
> the office for an hour or so after that, so if anyone beats me to it,
> terrific :)
There were several false starts, stalled synchronization, config issues etc,
but I believe
http://httpd.apache.org/mod_fcgid/
is looking fine. /download and /modules should also be good now. But
if someone else wants to follow up just to catch any typos, that would
be great.
It's great to see this released at last! I will get mod_ftp and mod_fcgid
binaries for win32 up on the site this weekend, as well (ftp's as I roll
the new 0.9.6 attempt).
How soon do we want another tarball with the whole flurry of fixes
committed to mod_fcgid already?
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> [ ] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
With +1's recorded from chrisd, trawick and wrowe, the package is
released as-beta (due principally to the more experimental auth issues
and terse documentation).
I've staged the release, and in response to the details from Rainer,
I regenerated the .md5/.sha1 tags in the process, using appropriate tools.
The embedded filenames now reflect -beta tags.
At 2pm EDT we can go ahead and sync the entire site, but I won't be at
the office for an hour or so after that, so if anyone beats me to it,
terrific :)
I've synced the module doc area for mod_fcgid and the configuration is also
updated to bridge all our links across into the httpd trunk docs. Feel free
to test this out before the entire site is synced;
http://httpd.apache.org/mod_fcgid/
you may be waiting for up to 45 minutes after this message for minotaur to
sync to the live server.
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:48 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
> mod_fcgid freinds;
>
> Please fetch up the newly minted mod_fcgid-2.3.1.tar.gz (or bz2)
> or the win32 suitable package mod_fcgid-2.3.1-crlf.zip from:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_fcgid/
>
> review, take it for a spin, and cast your choice
>
> [ ] -1 for any release of 2.3.1 (regressed from 2.3.0?)
> [ ] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
>
+1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> [X] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
Beta, not GA yet IMHO. I'll work out the schema of httpd.a.o/mod_fcgid/
following mod_ftp's pattern and call this vote completed, with all positive
responses; +1's from trawick and wrowe, plus a nod from from Rainer, Gregg,
and Mario...
if we see the third binding PMC vote by Tuesday afternoon [7th day
of voting].
Bill
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> [ ] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
With +1's recorded from chrisd, trawick and wrowe, the package is
released as-beta (due principally to the more experimental auth issues
and terse documentation).
I've staged the release, and in response to the details from Rainer,
I regenerated the .md5/.sha1 tags in the process, using appropriate tools.
The embedded filenames now reflect -beta tags.
At 2pm EDT we can go ahead and sync the entire site, but I won't be at
the office for an hour or so after that, so if anyone beats me to it,
terrific :)
I've synced the module doc area for mod_fcgid and the configuration is also
updated to bridge all our links across into the httpd trunk docs. Feel free
to test this out before the entire site is synced;
http://httpd.apache.org/mod_fcgid/
you may be waiting for up to 45 minutes after this message for minotaur to
sync to the live server.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: testers-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: testers-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:47 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >
> > I've been experimenting with AAA, and am currently getting massive
> > bogosity -- an access checker script is called for authorization -- on
> > subsequent requests.
>
> I'd like to proceed on at least a beta, if we consider the AAA side to be
> strictly experimental? Thoughts?
>
no problem here
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> I've been experimenting with AAA, and am currently getting massive
> bogosity -- an access checker script is called for authorization -- on
> subsequent requests.
I'd like to proceed on at least a beta, if we consider the AAA side to be
strictly experimental? Thoughts?
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
+1
On Sep 10, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Jeff Trawick<tr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> - "mod_fcgid: user %s access check failed,
>> respond
>> %d, URI %s",
>> + "mod_fcgid: user %s authorization
>> failed, respond
>> %d, URI %s",
>
>
> +1 to these and friends, noticed the copy/paste between the different
> hooks and the misinformation about where you failed.
>
> --
> Eric Covener
> covener@gmail.com
>
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Jeff Trawick<tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - "mod_fcgid: user %s access check failed, respond
> %d, URI %s",
> + "mod_fcgid: user %s authorization failed, respond
> %d, URI %s",
+1 to these and friends, noticed the copy/paste between the different
hooks and the misinformation about where you failed.
--
Eric Covener
covener@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Chris Darroch <ch...@pearsoncmg.com>wrote:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> Interestingly, I found this post from Chris some time ago that covers the
>> issue:
>>
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/mod-fcgid-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg00085.html
>>
>> His patch:
>>
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~chrisd/patches/mod_fcgid_auth/mod_fcgid-1auth-trunk.patch<http://people.apache.org/%7Echrisd/patches/mod_fcgid_auth/mod_fcgid-1auth-trunk.patch>
>>
>
>
> Yes -- we use this to handle authn/z using FastCGI and it works reasonably
> OK for us. That said, two problems (both my fault):
>
> - the patch contains a number of cumulative fixes, all lumped together
> (I know, I know ... I'll never do that again!)
>
> - I've seen one report of a problem but not done any investigation:
>
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/mod-fcgid-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg00306.html
>
>
> Chris, I don't think you've referenced the patch here, and for the new
>> ASL-licensed code base. Can you do so?
>>
>
> Well, it's certainly something I want to divide up into proper
> one-at-a-time patches and apply against mod_fcgid. I wanted to do
> so right away but life has just not permitted me the spare time.
>
> If anyone can tackle dividing it up and getting some or all of
> the changes committed, please, please do so -- it would be most welcome!
> (I certainly grant the patches to the ASF.)
>
> Otherwise, I should have time opening up again in October and will
> look at it as a first priority then.
>
Thanks for the update. Maybe I'll find some time to integrate a fix or two
from the big patch.
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Chris Darroch <ch...@pearsoncmg.com>.
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Interestingly, I found this post from Chris some time ago that covers
> the issue:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/mod-fcgid-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg00085.html
>
> His patch:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~chrisd/patches/mod_fcgid_auth/mod_fcgid-1auth-trunk.patch
Yes -- we use this to handle authn/z using FastCGI and it works reasonably
OK for us. That said, two problems (both my fault):
- the patch contains a number of cumulative fixes, all lumped together
(I know, I know ... I'll never do that again!)
- I've seen one report of a problem but not done any investigation:
http://www.mail-archive.com/mod-fcgid-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg00306.html
> Chris, I don't think you've referenced the patch here, and for the new
> ASL-licensed code base. Can you do so?
Well, it's certainly something I want to divide up into proper
one-at-a-time patches and apply against mod_fcgid. I wanted to do
so right away but life has just not permitted me the spare time.
If anyone can tackle dividing it up and getting some or all of
the changes committed, please, please do so -- it would be most welcome!
(I certainly grant the patches to the ASF.)
Otherwise, I should have time opening up again in October and will
look at it as a first priority then.
FWIW, I did pull down mod_fcgid and it compiles OK against 2.2.13 using
an older gcc 3.4.3 on an RHEL 4 box. Very nice work on the configuration
improvements!
Chris.
--
GPG Key ID: 366A375B
GPG Key Fingerprint: 485E 5041 17E1 E2BB C263 E4DE C8E3 FA36 366A 375B
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've been experimenting with AAA, and am currently getting massive bogosity
> -- an access checker script is called for authorization -- on subsequent
> requests.
>
Interestingly, I found this post from Chris some time ago that covers the
issue:
http://www.mail-archive.com/mod-fcgid-users@lists.sourceforge.net/msg00085.html
His patch:
http://people.apache.org/~chrisd/patches/mod_fcgid_auth/mod_fcgid-1auth-trunk.patch
This part of the patch addresses the heart of this problem:
+ if (role == FCGI_AUTHORIZER) {
+ argv0 = auth_conf->path;
+ inode = wrapper_conf ? wrapper_conf->inode : auth_conf->inode;
+ deviceid = wrapper_conf ? wrapper_conf->deviceid : auth_conf->deviceid;
+ shareid = wrapper_conf ? wrapper_conf->share_group_id
+ : auth_conf->share_group_id;
+ } else {
+ inode = wrapper_conf ? wrapper_conf->inode : r->finfo.inode;
+ deviceid = wrapper_conf ? wrapper_conf->deviceid : r->finfo.device;
+ shareid = wrapper_conf ? wrapper_conf->share_group_id
+ : (apr_size_t) -1;
+ }
Chris, I don't think you've referenced the patch here, and for the new
ASL-licensed code base. Can you do so?
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:48 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
>
>> mod_fcgid freinds;
>>
>> Please fetch up the newly minted mod_fcgid-2.3.1.tar.gz (or bz2)
>> or the win32 suitable package mod_fcgid-2.3.1-crlf.zip from:
>>
>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_fcgid/
>>
>> review, take it for a spin, and cast your choice
>>
>> [ ] -1 for any release of 2.3.1 (regressed from 2.3.0?)
>> [ ] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
>> [ ] +1 to release as 2.3.1-GA
>>
>
> I've poked at it a little on a couple of platforms (so far so good); I
> anticipate being able to vote by tomorrow.
>
>
I've been experimenting with AAA, and am currently getting massive bogosity
-- an access checker script is called for authorization -- on subsequent
requests.
Some messages don't help either ;)
@@ -387,7 +397,7 @@
{
/* Pass */
ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_DEBUG | APLOG_NOERRNO, 0, r,
- "mod_fcgid: access granted");
+ "mod_fcgid: access granted (authorization)");
/* Modify headers: An Authorizer application's 200 response may
include headers
whose names are prefixed with Variable-. */
@@ -399,15 +409,15 @@
/* Print error info first */
if (res != OK)
ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING | APLOG_NOERRNO, 0, r,
- "mod_fcgid: user %s access check failed, respond
%d, URI %s",
+ "mod_fcgid: user %s authorization failed, respond
%d, URI %s",
r->user, res, r->uri);
else if (r->status != 200)
ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING | APLOG_NOERRNO, 0, r,
- "mod_fcgid: user %s access check failed, status
%d, URI %s",
+ "mod_fcgid: user %s authorization failed, status
%d, URI %s",
r->user, r->status, r->uri);
else
ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_WARNING | APLOG_NOERRNO, 0, r,
- "mod_fcgid: user %s access check failed,
redirected is not allowed",
+ "mod_fcgid: user %s authorization failed,
redirected is not allowed",
r->user);
/* Handle error */
I'll commit the message change for sure, and hope to straighten out the more
serious issue (which may or may not be a regression).
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Mario Brandt <jb...@gmail.com>.
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:48 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
>
> mod_fcgid freinds;
>
> Please fetch up the newly minted mod_fcgid-2.3.1.tar.gz (or bz2)
> or the win32 suitable package mod_fcgid-2.3.1-crlf.zip from:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_fcgid/
>
> review, take it for a spin, and cast your choice
>
> [ ] for any release of 2.3.1 (regressed from 2.3.0?)
> [ ] to release as 2.3.1-beta
> [ ] to release as 2.3.1-GA
I have only a non binding vote, but it works fine for me as a VC9
build on Windows 2003 with PHP5.3 and PHP6.0 dev
Mario
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:48 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
> mod_fcgid freinds;
>
> Please fetch up the newly minted mod_fcgid-2.3.1.tar.gz (or bz2)
> or the win32 suitable package mod_fcgid-2.3.1-crlf.zip from:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_fcgid/
>
> review, take it for a spin, and cast your choice
>
> [ ] -1 for any release of 2.3.1 (regressed from 2.3.0?)
> [ ] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
> [ ] +1 to release as 2.3.1-GA
>
I've poked at it a little on a couple of platforms (so far so good); I
anticipate being able to vote by tomorrow.
Re: [VOTE] release httpd mod_fcgid-2.3.1?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> [X] +1 to release as 2.3.1-beta
Beta, not GA yet IMHO. I'll work out the schema of httpd.a.o/mod_fcgid/
following mod_ftp's pattern and call this vote completed, with all positive
responses; +1's from trawick and wrowe, plus a nod from from Rainer, Gregg,
and Mario...
if we see the third binding PMC vote by Tuesday afternoon [7th day
of voting].
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: testers-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: testers-help@httpd.apache.org